On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Peter Stavrinides <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > This is an interesting discussion, but I tend to agree with Howard's view > that Tapestry should be focused towards Tapestry centric applications and > later on integration with web flow and others... a side note on > compatibility, Tapestry is such a progressive platform yet it has not been > tested officially with Java 6? I know it works, as I have been using it for > over a year now, so why the delay in moving to JDK 6?
I develop and code against JDK 1.5. We purposely don't use any JDK 1.6 features (though I'm slavering for a few changes in java.concurrent) to enforce compatibility to JDK 1.5. Many people are slow to move up even from 1.4. > > cheers > Peter > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> > Sent: Wednesday, 15 October, 2008 8:23:00 PM GMT +02:00 Athens, Beirut, > Bucharest, Istanbul > Subject: Re: Tapestry 5 Integration with Spring Web Flow 2? > > No, actually, Keith Donald and I have discussed this repeatedly, and I > think it would be a good thing to add in 5.1. We also have ideas > about how to make Spring/Tapestry IoC integration better and more > symmetric. > > We're stumbling one one thing, Keith doesn't know much Tapestry and > sees it as a view technology; he wants SWF to "run the show". He does > have a point in terms of legacy apps that want to be implemented > partly in Struts/JSF/Craptaculous and partly in T5. > > I'm more concerned with new projects that are more purely T5 and I > want T5 to be in the driver's seat; my vision for truly seamless SWF > integration requires it. > > Right now I'm most concerned with getting a stable, useful 5.0 release > out the door. > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:03 AM, John Jimmy Dondapati > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I got some answers here supporting what Thiago and Geoff ranted about. >> http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/tapestry-ioc/ >> >> Quote : >> >> " *The core concept of Tapestry IoC is that the Java language itself is the >> easiest and most succinct way to describe object creation and method >> invocation. Any approximation in XML is ultimately more verbose and >> unwieldy. As the >> examples<http://tapestry.apache.org/tapestry5/tapestry-ioc/service.html#injection>show, >> a small amount of Java code and a handful of naming conventions and >> annotations is far simpler and easier than a big chunk of XML.* >> >> *In addition, moving from XML to Java code encourages testing; you can unit >> test the service builder methods of your module builder class, but you can't >> realistically unit test an XML descriptor. " >> * >> >> Looks like the fundamental idea of Tapestry is moving away from xml and >> putting the IOC into code. I guess, same goes for navigation. >> >> So, I guess there will not be a Spring Web Flow integration from Tapestry >> side unless Spring takes the effort. >> >> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:54 AM, John Jimmy Dondapati <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 9:21 AM, Lubor Gajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>>> > Don't forget you can add new object scopes to Tapestry. >>>> >>>> The main problem here is not definition of conversation scope, but >>>> specification of conversation boundaries (when the conversation should >>>> start >>>> and when it should end and release all objects associated with >>>> conversation >>>> scope). This mechanism should be as simple and user friendly as possible >>>> (all third party implementations I've seen so far are quite verbose in >>>> this >>>> point). >>>> >>>> > It doesn't support this feature out-of-the-box, but it was built in such >>>> a >>>> flexible and intelligent way that this can be added as an add-on >>>> > package without rewriting Tapestry itself. You could use page class >>>> transformations to do that, for example. >>>> >>>> I agree that Tapestry is amazingly flexible framework that allows you >>>> modify >>>> it's internal behaviour if you need it. However, I also think that >>>> conversation support is so common requirement (each nontrivial web >>>> application needs it) that it should be supported out-of-the-box. >>>> >>> >>> Couldnt agree more. In fact thats the other main reason that made us go for >>> JSF + SWF combo apart from the client requirement to specify navigation >>> outside the code. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo < >>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Em Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:51:33 -0300, Lubor Gajda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> > escreveu: >>>> > >>>> > Hi Thiago/Geoff, >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Hi! >>>> > >>>> > However, when you are using page based approach your flow definition is >>>> >> scattered across whole application >>>> >> and you have to edit and analyze all those hundreds of pages to gather >>>> all >>>> >> information pieces, what is much more time consuming and less user >>>> friendly >>>> >> approach. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > There's always the possibility of writing an analyzer using JavaCC or >>>> ANTLR >>>> > or even as a Tapestry service that does what you're describing by >>>> looking at >>>> > @InjectPage annotations. It wouldn't be as complete as a SWF >>>> configuration, >>>> > but I think it would cover most situations. ;) >>>> > >>>> > Moreover, Spring Web Flow is not only about flow definition. Its >>>> another >>>> >> important feature is that it introduces new object scopes that allow >>>> you >>>> >> easily share objects between pages in the same flow/conversation. How >>>> >> would you implement this in Tapestry? Would you use ASO objects and >>>> manually >>>> >> clean them when flow/conversation ends? Or would you just use 'bucket >>>> >> brigade >>>> >> pattern' and manually set the object to following page instance? Each >>>> of >>>> >> these two approaches is less productive and less user friendly than >>>> >> directly using flow/conversation scope. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > I would use an ASO and clean up manually. >>>> > >>>> > Don't forget you can add new object scopes to Tapestry. This has been >>>> done >>>> > before, even with conversation scope, even not using Seam or SWF: >>>> > http://www.nabble.com/T5%3A-Persistence-pains-tt17027697.html#a17080018 >>>> . >>>> > >>>> > Looking at this list archives, some people were trying to integerate >>>> Seam >>>> > into Tapestry to provide what you're describing here (conversation >>>> scope). >>>> > >>>> > I completely agree that XML programming is nonsense, but XML flow >>>> >> definition is not the only choice. You can use java based flow >>>> definitions >>>> >> or >>>> >> eventually create your own custom flow builders (for instance grails >>>> >> framework uses SWF with groovy based flow builder). >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > That's nice. I use Spring, but with JavaConfig, so I almost don't have >>>> to >>>> > write XML. >>>> > >>>> > Tapestry is by its concept strictly page based framework and it doesn't >>>> >> support grouping pages to flows/conversations. >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > It doesn't support this feature out-of-the-box, but it was built in such >>>> a >>>> > flexible and intelligent way that this can be added as an add-on package >>>> > without rewriting Tapestry itself. You could use page class >>>> transformations >>>> > to do that, for example. >>>> > >>>> > I think that this would be >>>> >> good opportunity to start discussion in Tapestry community about >>>> >> advantages/disadvantages of flow/conversation concept to clarify if it >>>> >> would be useful to introduce this concept in future Tapestry releases >>>> or >>>> >> not. So, what do you think? >>>> >> >>>> > >>>> > Discussions are always a good thing. :) >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo >>>> > Independent Java consultant, developer, and instructor >>>> > Consultor, desenvolvedor e instrutor em Java >>>> > http://www.arsmachina.com.br/thiago >>>> > >>>> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Cheers, >>> John >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Cheers, >> John >> > > > > -- > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
