Somewhere in Utrecht, Francis Amanfo is laughing. As for the book, I'm sure it will be a boon for Wicket developers. I enjoyed his T4 sample book. Maybe you can ask Kent directly instead of trolling.
On Jan 3, 2008 6:09 PM, Emmanuel Sowah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Guys, > > I read somewhere some time back that Kent Tong, a Tapestry commiter, is > writing a book on Wicket. Anyone has info on the status of this? And Kent, > if your reading, could you please shed some light on the availability of > your book on Wicket? > > Regards, > Emmanuel > > On Jan 3, 2008 10:11 PM, Chris Lewis <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > Emmanuel, > > > > I have not been using tapestry long. In fact it was only a few months > > ago that I first heard of tapestry 4, at which point I bought Kent > > Tong's book and began examining its possible use. Until tapestry I had > > avoided web development in Java because I could not justify the time it > > took to develop my projects in such a rigid environment. Worse was that > > the 'scene' seemed largely filled with purists reeking of > anti-pragmatism. > > One day I noticed a note on the site about tapestry 5, and how one > > should spend time in it as it would eclipse 4 and be basically > > incompatible. That sounded odd, so I did research. As you may have > > guessed, I learned about tapestry's progressive yet spotty history of > > pushing the envelope while at the same time alienating many users from > > adopting it. It seemed somewhat cruel to me, but I settled on being ok > > as tapestry 4 was being, and is still being maintained. Bugs are being > > fixed and new features are still finding themselves implemented. > > Now, don't confuse my words - I don't look at this history and think it > > was good to do some of the things that were done. If I were a manager I > > might have legitimate concerns about using a framework with such a > > liquid history. Then I starting working with T5, and if it took that > > mistakes that were made to arrive at this juncture, I'll be so bold as > > to say they were worth it. > > People using T5 understand the 'risks' and disappointments you are > > pointing out. They are no secret. On the contrary they are quite public. > > > As such I ask this of you: please cease with your regurgitated points > > and annotations. We all know. We also all know about Wicket. It too is a > > respectable and highly visible framework. Your points, which now are > > just rants, are falling on dead ears here. If you seek an audience, > > kindly find a more receptive one on which to spew your bile. However out > > of respect for the users that constructively seek to support and use > > this framework, and out of respect for your own professional profile, > > please stop with such messages. > > > > sincerely, > > chris > > > > Emmanuel Sowah wrote: > > > Wao, this Wicket framework is becoming hotter and hotter each day. > Worth > > > taking a serious look at it. > > > > > > On Jan 2, 2008 9:06 PM, Jan Vissers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> http://wicket.apache.org/ > > >> > > >> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also > > >> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code. > > >> > > >> > > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >
