I've not done quite the same, but I did use legacy jsp's and tapestry in the same web-app with no problem at all.
If you don't want to put everything into the same (legacy) web-application, you can configure tomcat to share login information across web-applications - I think there's something called SingleSignOnValve to do this. We use our own Valve instead, because we need single sign-on across the whole extranet (lots of different servers - and server-types). > -----Original Message----- > From: Detlef Schulze [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 11:04 AM > To: Tapestry users > Subject: Migration to Tapestry > > > Hi, > > the company I work for has a quite large application which is based on > jboss/tomcat and that uses a homegrown framework for the webpart > (dispatcher servlet that follows the model 2 servlet approach with > velocity as templating engine for the html). > > The dispatcher servlet does quite a lot in terms of > authentication/authorization. > > It now has been decided that we want to use tapestry for the webpart. > > Since the application is quite large, we figured out that it is simply > not possible to do a "hard" migration and migrate everything to > tapestry. Therefore it is my task to find out if it is feasible for us > to simply add tapestry to the application and to use it for all new > features/pages that will be added to the application. The first thing > that should be done with tapestry is the administration part for jBPM, > that will be integrated soon. > > I have experience with tapestry 3 (I am the only one on the team that > has experience with tapestry) but I never had to work on an > application > that uses tapestry in addition to an old fashioned dispatcher servlet > solution. > > Two problems come to my mind: session handling (the user definitely > don't want to log in twice) and authentication/authorization (which > includes LDAP authentication) which must be integrated. Once > the user is > logged in, the transition from the velocity pages to the tapestry part > must be transparent. > > I may have overlooked a whole bunch of other issues, but the basic > question is: has anybody done something similar? What other > issues do I > have overlooked and how could they be solved? > > Thanks for any hint or tip ... > > Cheers, > Detlef > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
