+1 I'm quite new to Tapestry, and each tutorial has a different way of doing something. They all seem to work, but I'm still in a bit of no-mans-land with why it all works. This will come with time though.
For instance, three weeks ago I started with the "Tapestry for non-believers" tutorial which I didn't quite get 100% (and rushing through didn't get to work 1st time). Then jumped to a brilliantly written french tutorial (thanks google translate) that used hibernate and spring in a different non-tapestry (and non maven) way. Failing seems to be the way to learn because after that, I understood what worked a little more. The Packt book has a solid tutorial I worked through today and will finish in a day or two as time permits. Now when I say "different way" I think a lot boils down to the naming of packages. Sometimes it's entities, sometimes it's model for the persistent/DB stuff. And this difference in naming seems to be at the bottom of this AppModule discussion. A picture would tell a thousand words in a scenario like this, although I haven't got the foggiest idea where I may come across this problem in the future and should admit that I'm currently "punching above my weight" on this topic. Kind Regards, Chris On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Igor Drobiazko <igor.drobia...@gmail.com>wrote: > A fixed name like "AppModule" would have been a much better decision but it > is just too late. We should *never* deprecate or remove any of the naming > conventions. There are a lot of online articles and few books on T5 > describing the convention. Just imagine a frustration of someone who just > read an old online article, followed the convention (Filter name + Module) > and is wondering why his module is not located. Oh, the Tapestry guys > changed the convention in version 5.x. Very frustrating. Tapestry has been > criticized of breaking the backward compatibility. There so much apps out > there that use other name than AppModule. > > In contrast we are introducing interfaces ServiceDef2, ContributionDef2 to > keep the compatibility with apps build with older T5 versions. IMHO changed > naming conventions are much harder to debug then changed interfaces. > > On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 12:47 AM, Howard Lewis Ship <hls...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > Seems like we keep hitting the error where people change web.xml, > > rename their filter, and are confused that their AppModule is no > > longer loaded. > > > > I think the way that T5 locates the module class from the filter name > > is over-engineered. > > > > I think it should just be fixed as "AppModule", in the services > > package, end of story. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > -- > > Howard M. Lewis Ship > > > > Creator of Apache Tapestry > > > > The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to > > learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast! > > > > (971) 678-5210 > > http://howardlewisship.com > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > > Igor Drobiazko > http://tapestry5.de/blog >
