what i like most: - the tapestry ioc container
- component development: it is so easy to create components even complex ones. JSF needs at least 5-6 artifacts (java, xml, jsp) to create a component. T5 apps tend to have more component reuse and a reduced amount of duplicate gui code (jsf 2.0 is getting better here as well) - it is easy to learn: i trained our developers (from novice to experienced java developers) and it took them just about 2-3 days to become productive. although its quite hard to find the right explanation from the docs. - you can change almost every aspect of the framework and adapt it to your needs as much as you need it. Christian Edward Gruber <christianedwardgru...@gmail.com> 26.04.2009 18:32 Bitte antworten an "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> An "Tapestry users" <users@tapestry.apache.org> Kopie Thema Re: Web framework evaluation - What is beautiful in Tapestry? Just for the record, component-oriented MVC is much more consistent with the SmallTalk-style MVC, so in some ways it is more "pure". The "model 1" and "model 2" MVC that such systems as Struts implement are actually "page-at-a-time" and therefore are much less flexible. Christian. On 26-Apr-09, at 11:53 , Otho wrote: > Another great point is the component orientation which makes for a > much more natural flow of coding compared to pure MVC. Christian Edward Gruber e-mail: christianedwardgru...@gmail.com weblog: http://www.geekinasuit.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
