Em Wed, 23 Dec 2009 12:07:21 -0200, Alessandro Bottoni
<alexbott...@gmail.com> escreveu:
Hence, the relatively scarce fame of Tapestry can be considered a
problem in itself. If few people know Tapestry and few people write few
code and support it, then the whole framework became less palatable.
Maybe, we should do something about it...
You've hit the head of the nail. ;)
For what regards me, I still hope to be able to write some
docu/article/marketing stuff in the near future (with the help of the
members of this list, of course). Let's hope this helps.
It surely helps.
Well, I'm not sure that the T5 IoC container is completely innocent. It
is true that T5 IoC is much lighter and much more manageable than the
Spring's one. It is also true that its mechanism of configuration is
very elegant.
:)
Nevertheless, I wonder if its original architecture represents a barrier
for the programmers used to Spring IoC or other containers.
It will be a barrier for anyone used to another IoC container. The
architecture of IoC containers, AFAIK, is very similar to each other. You
have beans/services, dependency injection, AOP, no much beyond that.
Maybe it is just a matter of pre-existing skills and programming habits.
I don't know if this is an issue, but it is for almost anything in
software development. That's exactly why I think many people still use
Struts when there are many better alternatives. Inertia.
Maybe a "compatibility layer" could help (for example: accepting both
the T5 and the Spring configuration sintax).
This could be added to the Spring integration, except the XML part, that
is awful.
Or, maybe, it is a subtle matter of compatibility between the T5 IoC
container and the modules we try to integrate (given that most of them
were designed to work with other types of IoC containers).
The Spring integration does that. We could also do similar integrations
with EJB3, Weld (for CDI), etc.
I wonder, for example, if there is some Spring IoC (or other IoC
container) feature that is missing in the T5 IoC and that can make any
difference. Could it be a (maybe obscure) missing feature the reason why
a few programmers find so hard to develop a module integration library?
I don't think so. IoC containers features are similar. Comparing
Spring-Core, Tapestry-IoC and Guice, AFAIK, Spring has no feature that the
others don't have. On the other hand, Spring is way older (1.0 released in
2004!) and they have a company behind it, so they can pay people to work
on it full time.
I still think it's more a matter of someone having the time and need.
Anyway, these are JM2C.
Thanks for contributing to the discussion. :)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
and instructor
Owner, software architect and developer, Ars Machina Tecnologia da
Informação Ltda.
http://www.arsmachina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
