Well, the only thing Tapernate is missing right now (AFAIK) is the transaction-per-conversation support. I know Marcus has done that already in Honeycomb, so I will be "combing" (couldn't resist) through it to see what I can steal...cough...cough...borrow. ;-) What is needed is a good way to demarcate when your conversations are starting/finishing, though. I haven't really come up with a brilliant idea about that yet, but I'm working on it.
-----Original Message----- From: Hugo Palma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 10:31 AM To: Tapestry users Subject: Re: Honeycomb vs Tapernate or Honeycomb with Tapernate I agree that tapernate feels more hibernish then honeycomb. I guess the suggestion here would be to break honeycomb into several plugable jars each one providing an integration with a different technology. One of these could then could be a merge of tapernate and honeycomb hibernate integration. Sounds good to me........ On 5/3/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As much as I'd like to be loyal to honeycomb, when it came down to > evaluating both and choosing one to reccomend to a client I ended up going > with tapernate. > > I feel it most closely fits in with the style of development that tapestry > and hivemind both try to achieve. (funny that, considering that James is > one > of the core hivemind devs ;) ) > > It would be nice to see the two merge or at least come to an agreement. I > probably shouldn't get involved in giving opinions but since my only > loyalty > seems to be to the best of for any given technology that's how it is... > > I will probably be trying to find a way to add the jms / drools / etc > logic > into one of the drop in jar sort of libraries being managed over on > javaforge. > > On 5/3/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I don't know about that, necessarily. We have discussed it in the past. > > However, the scope of Tapernate is less than what Honeycomb is trying to > > achieve. Tapernate is supposed to be the "way to do hibernate within > > tapestry." But, Honeycomb has other pieces (auditing, excel exporting, > > etc.) to it that don't fit into the Tapernate scope. > > > > The way I see it, Honeycomb should be written on top of Tapernate (at > > least > > the parts that require persistence) as a library of useful tapestry > > utilities. However, putting them all in the same jar doesn't allow you > to > > use it as separate "drop-in" jars. If it were me, I would separate the > > stuff out into multiple jar files so the user can pick and choose what > > they > > want to enable. And, when they're placed on the classpath, the > libraries > > should weave themselves into the framework automatically using either > > configurations or overriding service implementations. That's my vision > > (and > > the HiveMind vision), to create a vast library of these drop-in jars > that > > will enable certain features when added to your classpath. Of course, > > that's exactly what Howard's [EMAIL PROTECTED] project is all about. > > There's my $0.02. > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Hugo Palma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:55 AM > > To: Tapestry users > > Subject: Re: Honeycomb vs Tapernate or Honeycomb with Tapernate > > > > I see that. So what you're trying to say is that tapernate and honeycomb > > approachs are too diferent implementation wise for them to be merged > into > > a > > single project ? > > > > On 5/3/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I chose to use the Spring stuff to manage the current sessions and > allow > > > for > > > declarative transaction demarcation since I know that stuff works > quite > > > well. I don't use Spring IoC at all. I just added the Spring stuff > > into > > > my > > > HiveMind "object soup." > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Hugo Palma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:41 AM > > > To: Tapestry users > > > Subject: Re: Honeycomb vs Tapernate or Honeycomb with Tapernate > > > > > > That's one of the differences in implementation that i found. But i > > don't > > > see that as a something that will drive my choice, as long as i don't > > have > > > to use Spring IOC(hivemind will do just fine) for me it's just another > > jar > > > in the classpath. > > > > > > On 5/3/06, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > One big difference is the usage of the Spring classes within > > Tapernate. > > > > This is just a difference of opinion/direction. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Hugo Palma [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:04 AM > > > > To: Tapestry users > > > > Subject: Honeycomb vs Tapernate or Honeycomb with Tapernate > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > i've just started thinking about how Tapestry is going to be used in > a > > > new > > > > project at work. One of the decisions is how the integration with > > > > hibernate > > > > is going to be implemented, i'm guessing 95% of Tapestry projects > goes > > > > through this. With this in mind i took a look at Honeycomb and at > > > > Tapernate. > > > > They both look great and seem to provide just what i need to this > > > project. > > > > Although this is good, it leaves me with a problem, which one ? > > > > > > > > As i look deeply into each one i find some differences in > > > > implementation/usage of the same feature, some features that are > > > > implemented > > > > in honeycomb and not tapernate and vice-versa, but mainly i see a > > > project > > > > goal difference. It seems that honeycomb looks to not only provide > > > > integration with hibernate but with other libraries that might be > > useful > > > > in > > > > a web project, tapernate only goal is to implement the > > > tapestry+hibernate > > > > integration. > > > > > > > > With this, some doubts came to mind. > > > > > > > > Why are there two projects for this ? > > > > Wouldn't it be better for both projects if they would join forces ? > If > > > so, > > > > shouldn't tapernate be included/merged into honeycombs hibernate > > > > integration > > > > ? > > > > > > > > > > > > What do you guys think ? > > > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > Hugo > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > 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] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > -- > Jesse Kuhnert > Tacos/Tapestry, team member/developer > > Open source based consulting work centered around > dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
