Interesting. Some thoughts and/or questions: 1) Why are the page classes for success and fail abstract? They can be concrete. 2) For testing 4.0 stuff, why not use the 4.0 dtd? 3) You've implemented the home page name,password, etc. properties as simple properties... that is, you're not allowing tapestry to do the legwork for you. a) I hope you're not doing this in production b/c you'll run into issues in terms of data leaks. b) for benchmarking, too, you should do things the "tapestry way" since otherwise, the times don't reflect "real" processing times. 4) The simple example is nice for a variety of reasons, but where you will (theoretically, at least :) see tapestry shine over JSF is with complex component-tree rendering/handling. Why not create a very complex form with multiple nested components, etc. and compare jsf to tapestry? That's more "true to life" and illustrates performance in more realistic situations.
Robert Alexander Varakin wrote: > Hi, > > I ran a simple Tapestry vs JSF benchmark, results are posted on my blog: > http://www.resupedia.com/blojsom/blog/Java/2006/02/28/Tapestry-vs-JSF.html > > > Alex > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
