I actually prefer hivemind to Spring. Just my 2 cents. I find it easier to learn and better at what it does. Kris
----- Original Message ---- From: Rui Pacheco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Tapestry users <users@tapestry.apache.org> Sent: Friday, July 28, 2006 3:23:34 PM Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Discussions Sometimes missing features is not a bad thing. If you want people to use your framework, you need to implement something they can use. Maybe losing some features and gaining some compatibility isn't such a bad thing. The rest could come later. This is not a race. On 7/28/06, D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I completely agree with you, and I really wish Spring were up to the task. > However, Howard seems to have done his homework and come to the conclusion > that it can't provide the features he needs for Tap5 (see > http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/ioc/index.html). > > In my personal ideal world, Spring would have implemented the namespacing, > abstraction, visibility and distributed configuration features he needs, > and > we could all reuse our Spring knowledge when we find we need to extend > Tap5. > At this point all I can hope for is that they implement some of that stuff > in time for Tap6 :-) > > On 7/28/06, Rui Pacheco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Actually, I support the idea that leaving HiveMind is good. > > But not for a new IoC container. We should be using something that has > > more > > market share, like the Pico Container or the container used by Spring. > > Why are we writing a *new* IoC container? Why not standardise Tapestry, > > that > > does something no other framework does, on components known throughout > the > > developer community? > > > > Its all about reuse. Reuse components, reuse examples spread through the > > web, reuse the knowledge you acquired on different projects. > > > > -- Cumprimentos, Rui Pacheco
