Katia, I'm neither obsessed with ATG or Oracle, nor with SpringSource and their products (as some may feel a little bit about Matt's ranking [?]) just putting some of the more "Vertical" or Business capable examples into a much smaller list, than he did there with a whole lot of different frameworks both in- and outside the browser.
If you'd claim anything I was especially interested in, that "Domain Driven" or "Vertical" aspect of some frameworks is clearly among them. I help shape some framworks or base libraries even the "darlings" like Grails or Spring like to use sometimes, and some of them are likely to get a slightly wider use from Java 7 onwards... Werner On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Katia Aresti <katiaare...@gmail.com>wrote: > @Werner : > > It might be a matter of my low English level, but I can't even understand > the half of your thoughts. Moreover, I still don't get your obsession with > ATG, which is a commercial product not a framework and which has a very very > very expensive license. > But It doesn't matter, I quit this pointless discussion with this last > sentence: > maybe you are right and I will come back to ATG product one day, with > glassfish or maybe *Wickestry IoC*. > However, what I really hope is to come back to real world Tapestry 5 actual > work :) > > Katia > > 2010/11/22 Werner Keil <werner.k...@gmail.com> > > Back to the DevoXX discussion, it has clearly lost some momentum now, that >> JavaOne was moved to the Sep/Oct timeslot, and DevoXX itself was even >> shifted almost a month itself. While even the announcements and great news >> of last year (Java getting Closures[?]) were not as close to becoming >> reality as it then may have sounded, everything discussed or presented this >> year on Java was only the aftermath of JavaOne. The JSRs being out just this >> week probably being the only "gossip" for the bloggers and "Parvez Hiltons" >> of the Java Community who have gathered there much more than on JavaOne or >> other conferences by the vendors itself. >> >> Guess Matt has moved himself a step closer to such "Parvenism" with that >> presentation ?[?] >> > >
