I love Tapestry IOC. When used in a very basic way, it's almost indistinguishable from Guice. Actually it's less intrusive since you don't need annotations for injection.
Tapestry is very powerful when you do more advanced stuff, and I just love that the power's there even though I don't use it that much. "Why doesn't everyone use X if it's so great?" "Why don't you use the standard?" These questions wrongly assume that standards are always a good thing, and that standards are of high quality. And that the companies funding these standards are acting in your best interest, not in their own :) On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 7:01 PM, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us>wrote: > I don't think neither I nor hantsy have any realistic action items that > will possibly be implemented, > simply because the maintainers have too much stake in the status quo. > There is nothing wrong with that. It is legitimate to protect your > investment, > especially if you making a living off of it. I would do the same thing. > There were legitimate reasons at the time to make decisions that were made, > at least most of them. > > But, the landscape changed. Now there are better, simpler, more popular > choices > in IOC than Tapestry-IOC, and I would prefer a world without Tapestry-IOC. > I can attest that there is some NIH thing going on in Tapestry-world as > well. > There are words like "code dumping" or "not enough tests" or something else > that is used as an excuse to re-implement something that's already working > in a different way, but this never applies to code that goes into Tapestry > every day. > > I admit, my biggest pet peeve is code duplication. I would take 50% > functionality > from someone else other than develop 100% on my own, even if it isn't > exactly > 100% exact way I would do it. I find a way to work with a other people's > products, > not trying to re-create the whole stack. > > Standards? The excuse that standards stifle innovation is so "Microsoft" > Standards in no way stifle innovation. Where would we be without > standardized electricity? TCP/IP? etc. > > Backward compatibility? Also, this is used a lot as an excuse. > Perhaps the templates are backward-compatible, at best. > IOC code has never been compatible from one version to the next. > I even had to change code from 5.3.1 to 5.3.2 > > > Why do I like tapestry? Well let's discuss the features. > > - Template language. Can be read in DreamWeaver and other tools, can be > handed off to designers and then taken back. > This is #1 feature of Tapestry for me. No other framework comes close to > this level of consistency > Con: HTML5 isn't really XML-compliant, so as tools go more HTML5 they > will lose their XML compliant features and > TML editing with those tools will start failing over time. > > - Zones / JavaScript integration > Love the fact that I don't have to touch JavaScript for most tasks. > > - Component Model. I do like the component model. Perhaps not internally > (due to IOC) > but the way its structured, i.e. pages/components/mixins. > > Neutral: > - live class reloading. Glassfish redeploy is very fast, so I don't even > use live class reloading > - Hibernate / JPA integration. I use EJB/CDI layers to do this processing > > Negative: > - Tapestry-IOC > At the very least, dynamic configuration should be factored out and > disconnected from the IOC part. Then perhaps replaced with an > off-the-shelf tool. > > On May 16, 2013, at 1:45 AM, Dmitry Gusev wrote: > > > I'm not getting what are you trying to say. Is it "lets replace > > tapestry-ioc with some other ioc"? > > Or "lets implement proper CDI support"? > > > >> If you are implying that this is all so important, why isn't every > > project on the planet using Tapestry-IOC? > > > >> I would be very happy using the Web Framework without Tapestry-IOC, > using > > just plain beans for configuration, > > or even using CDI events to gather configuration. > > > > I understand this is a rhetorical statements, but isn't every Tapestry5 > > application on the planet uses tapestry-ioc? > > > > How would you use tapestry5 the web framework without its ioc? > > > > I mean what do you like in tapestry5 the web framework if its not ioc? > > > > I doubt you like its template language, because its not something unique. > > What then? Component model? Just curious. > > > > I know I'm advanced tapestry5 user because I use it since 2005 everyday > > non-stop and since version 3. > > I understand its concepts well and I may be just forgot how hard was it > to > > learn tapestry-ioc... > > this seems very easy to me now (at least those parts that are used in > > tapestry5 the web framework) and I can't imagine whats that hard to learn > > in it. > > Maybe if you still remember it and describe this here somewhere - then we > > may improve documentation? > > > > On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 6:23 AM, hantsy <han...@yahoo.com.cn> wrote: > > > >> > >>> As I said in another thread, you're suggesting replacing Tapestry-IoC > >>> with CDI. If that was done, people would still learn one IoC framework > >>> in order to learn Tapestry. CDI has a broader reach (in termos of > >>> concepts and features) than T-IoC. Not much people use CDI now (I may > >>> be wrong, of course). Given all that, I don't think replacing > >>> Tapestry-IoC with CDI in Tapestry would turn Tapestry much easier to > >>> learn, if at all. And you'd need to rewrite a lot of Tapestry code, > >>> which would need to get bigger. I don't think that's worth the effort > >>> at all. > >>> > >> > >> As far as I know, CDI which is part of Java EE 6 is widely used in > >> enterprise applications, I have used it in a large enterprise > >> applications(the development cycle is over 20 months). You should keep > >> a eye open to other communities, such as JBoss.org(in my view, it is the > >> most active community in these years), and glassfish...and the Apache > >> OpenEJB/OpenWebBeans related communities. > >> > >> I am a Tapestry4.0 user, but after 4.0, I gave up Tapestry. But I > >> subscribed this maillist to keep up with what is new in the newest > >> Tapestry. Of course, I rarely posted new topic in this maillist and > >> replied others. > >> > >> For the new Tapestry5, I have read the code Tap5-hotelbooking which is > >> the sample motioned in the Tapestry 5 homepage. > >> > >> But I was disappeared, too many artifacts are invented by Tapestry(like > >> Tapestry4 before), such as IOC, it is stopper for me to adopt it. > >> > >> Tapestry should embrace the existed and mature specs, such JSR330, Bean > >> Validation, Managed Bean, etc, Spring has supported them in 3.0 > natively. > >> > >> CDI provides more than JSR 330(only provides DI), for example, CDI > >> events, Tapestry can provides bridges to CDI Events, CDI conversation, > >> which can be implemented to group Tapestry pages to process a wizard > >> like task easily, eg. shopping cart. > >> > >> As I know, there are fewer people using Tapestry after 4.0, at least in > >> the circle of my friends, it is the truth. > >> > >> Tapestry developers should open minds and work together with other > >> technologies/framework, not invent everything themselves. Thus Tapestry > >> will be back to the view of more Java developers. > >> > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Hantsy > >> -- > >> Fulltime Java EE Freelancer from China > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > Dmitry Gusev > > > > AnjLab Team > > http://anjlab.com > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
