> >> Could it help Tapestry to find adoption in the Wicket-world? > > I don't think so. Both frameworks have similarities (components and pages > treated as objects), but very different approaches.
The web-frameworks have different approaches, yes, but Wicket has no own IOC module. What I see is that a Wicket user has the choice between Spring and Guice for DI. People do mostly evaluate both, Tapestry and Wicket, don't they? So in the future they could see a third DI provider, which is fortunately part of one of the frameworks they are just evaluating... I find that being a psychological advantage to have a Tapestry (IOC) integration for Wicket (and possibly other frameworks, too). You could read it as "Tapestry is so advanced you can use it everywhere" or "Development with Tapestry means to have no need for more web frameworks...". I mean we have to advertise it a little more :-) It's such a huge advantage to have that perfectly fitting IOC framework shipped with the web-framework. The basic integration was actually very very simple. Much simpler than Spring's or Guice's. It's just missing @CommitAfter support for hibernate and better approach of injecting the values into fields - not by reflection. On the other hand, Spring and Guice are doing the same, so this could become a unique feature if I find some byte-code-manipulating solution! And I also think an integration for play! or other frameworks could be pretty much the same effort. Tapestry is so easy to use :-) Well, I'll continue with that experiment! --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
