On 22.12.2009 17:41, Alfonso Quiroga wrote: > I agree with Thiago, but I've never used Wicket. I've used tapestry5 > and I really like it. Both frameworks are component-based, maybe some > day I'll try wicket. But if tap5 works for me... why do I have to > discuss in server-side? I prefer to share my solutions and workarounds > in this list, where there are people really interested in T5. > I agree on the discussions.
I think that (if needed) best promotion of Tapestry would be if everyone that is actually using it (and liking it) created a post somewhere or blogged about the reasons for choosing Tapestry and preferable to link such pages from the central documentation. The thing is that people who are new to all this, have to look somewhere and decide which technology to choose. There are not many comparisons where Tapestry is mentioned and most of them are not really favourable and mainly point out that Tapestry is too hard to learn. ... It is not. I was in this position two years ago, I had experience with Oracle Web PL/SQL and APEX, JSP, JSF, ASP and PHP and I am creating web sites from 1996 and I had the responsibility to choose something better. Even with such experience and even I was ready to learn from scratch it was hard to choose the technology for the next task. I decided to start with Tapestry bacause it was supposedly the hardest :)... .... It was not and it solved many problems I had with the others.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
