No, it doesn't about Tapestry. its about my problems during migration from lightweight containers to the Java EE standard world.
On Sat, Apr 12, 2008 at 11:27 AM, adasal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Your blog doesn't seem to be about Tapestry. > I believe there are standards, but the standards have boarders which may > be > redefined as the standard evolves. What is inside the boarder will be > interoperable, What is outside is left to the implementer. > It is very possible to misunderstand the standard and find that two > seeming > incompatible implementations are both correct and are compatible. These > things are complex. > I don't understand your point 4. But I doubt that TopLink is short on > features and capability. Maybe if you explain more fully, but this doesn't > belong to the Tapestry list. > What may belong here is how much Tapestry falls within the boarders of > J2EE > conformance, or does it touch on it at all? I would have thought it > doesn't > and any implementation made with Tapestry will be conforment where > standards > dictate. > Adam > > On 12/04/2008, Mohammad Shamsi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Friends, > > > > please take a look at my blog about Java EE and my problems with it. > > > > http://mhshams.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > -- > > sincerely yours > > M. H. Shamsi > > > -- sincerely yours M. H. Shamsi
