Em Thu, 24 Dec 2009 07:40:09 -0200, Gerald Bauer <gtat...@gmail.com>
escreveu:
I agree with you but I don't think that is the issue here. The question
was how come with Frameworks such as Wicket there is an explosion of
integrationmodules written and well documented whereas in Tapestry there
is only a
handful. Is this because Tapestry is too complex for achieving such
goals?
No. Some years ago, when Tapestry was still in its 5.0.5 version
(pre-pre-pre-alpha), I wrote a very simple Hibernate integration package
in Tapestry-IoC, including automatic transaction management. I was a
complete T-IoC newbie then. I wrote it in 8 hours, most of them dealing
with the transaction management itself, not with T-IoC.
Summary of the reasons Tapestry and Tapestry-IoC don't have the same
number of integrations as Wicket, as discussed recently in
http://old.nabble.com/Discussion-to26889452s302.html:
1) Someone has to write them. Time is needed for this.
2) Wicket is way older (4.5 years vs 1.5 years), so the Wicket people had
3x more time to write them than the Tapestry people.
3) More people use Wicket than Tapestry (I don't have any figures), so the
total amount of time for writing integrations is larger.
Sometimes, technology-related issues have non-technology causes. And
sometimes the best option is not the mostly used. Example: Struts until
some time ago, JSF now.
--
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
