Oh, and don't forget Spindle.
-----Original Message----- From: Mark Stang Sent: Wed 3/22/2006 4:09 PM To: Tapestry users; Tapestry users Subject: RE: promoting Tapestry I think we should promote 3.x: Better documentation. Better Books. More installations. -----Original Message----- From: Giampaolo Tomassoni [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wed 3/22/2006 4:00 PM To: Tapestry users Subject: R: promoting Tapestry > > ...omissis... > > but in my experience the sheer lack of support (online docs, forum > support, books, training) makes it a poor sell to those making decisions. > Not to mention changes from 3.0 -> 4.0 and proposed changes in 4.1 and 5.0 > all makes for a high maintenance, low reuse, and generally dirty migration > path (imho). I can't stand: I have to agree with you. There are a lot of things not very well explained in docs. In example, if you really want to leverage the power of Tapestry on top of the hivemind framework, you simply can't find much about Tapestry's own schemas, configurations, implementations and services. You have to resort to a kind of reverse-engineering and, of course, bother someone more knowledgeable. Not even to mention a lot of things about the hivemind framework itself... Are you confortable with the docs from http://jakarta.apache.org/hivemind ? Me, not. Maybe it's my fail, but nothing tells you, in example, how to override a service implementation. Apart people in this forum, of course... > I was really curious to hear the JSF war stories. As the documentation > (books/examples), training, and support of JSF is fantastic compared to > Tapestry. Yes, it is. I was trying to do something with the JBoss' JSF implementation. Got back here because of a couple of nifty bugs. JSF still immature, but very tempting. The Tapestry 3.0's approach was more pragmatic then the JSF one: a class, a component. It was simple and easy to understand. But know, with 4.0-and-above, POJOs are spreading the world! :) Just to add something to the conversation, I see that a lot of people thinks to POJOs like a panacea. I see, instead, that POJOs are a way to get a non-object-oriented language from an object-oriented one: you forget things like class hierarchy and interfaces and must be much more knowledgeable about how things work in the framework... Is it this the meaning of the term "inversion of control"? :) Regards, ----------------------------------- Giampaolo Tomassoni - IT Consultant Piazza VIII Aprile 1948, 4 I-53044 Chiusi (SI) - Italy Ph: +39-0578-21100 > > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 03/22/2006 10:50 AM > Please respond to > "Tapestry users" <tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org> > > > To > TapestryUsers <tapestry-user@jakarta.apache.org> > cc > > Subject > promoting Tapestry > > > > > > > Just want to share: > last night here at Seattle Java User group we had a round table > discussion where people were presenting WEB UI frameworks they use and > tried to highlight things they love about them. There were many: > Millstone, Barracuda, echo2, JSF, Struts, Tapestry, Tiles/Sitemesh, DWR, > RubyOnRails > Every presenter had about 6-8 minutes for a "sales pitch" and at the end > people answered the question: > If you were a king and decide what framework to use for next project, > which framework will you use? (People voted once only for just one > framework) > > Tapestry - 15; > Struts - 5; > JSF - 3; > The rest got zero or 1 votes; > I could attribute Tapestry's warm reception to my presenter skills :) > but in reality it is the Howard's hard work and Tapestry community make > the framework so appealing to developers. > I ask everybody to speak about Tapestry more frequently on > occasions and > this way we all will benefit from wider Tapestry adoption. > > > Konstantin Ignatyev > > > > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, > eliminate between > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, > add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population > by 263,000 > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental > Movement Needs > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New > York: State > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
