I believe it strongly depends what you want and use from Tapestry.
For example: The BeanEditor is a great component to display something
quickly but at the very end I never used it, because you can not (or at
least I am to stupid to) control exactly the look and feel / positioning
of all fields to make a real responsive form because it lacks css
modification accross fields.
As the world and Tapestry moves more and more towards JavaScript it's
natural you loose your preview capabilities but Tapestry still allows a
detailed preview of the static positioning and responsive setup without
a running server, in contrast to JSF / GWT or others.
In short: I like the concept, still.
Jens
Am 31.10.13 01:20, schrieb Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo:
On Wed, 30 Oct 2013 21:51:40 -0200, Lenny Primak
<lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us> wrote:
We have scenario #2 with the caveat that designer used their own tool
to edit templates and the IDE runs in the background so they can
check how the web site looks live.
In the end, with any kind of dynamic page, Tapestry or Wicket or Play
or PHP or anything else, running the application is the only way of
the designer be sure the result of their edits is the expected one.
And I really love the fact that Tapestry templates, even when using
complex components that generates lots of markup by itself, still look
like regular, ordinary HTML. Now compare with JSF templates, specially
non-facelet ones, for example.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
