You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <hl...@attbi.com> on 2003/02/21 03:52:36 UTC
RE: [Tapestry-developer] Compare to SOFIA
The Tapestry Developer list is for the developers of Tapestry to discuss the
framework out vote on orders of business. This message is more appropriate
to the tapestry-users list.
We are aware of the shortcomings of Tapestry (through release 2.3) in terms
of ease of adoption; you should take a peek at Tapestry 2.4 (now in alpha).
It has a huge number of improvements that make it easier to adopt Tapestry
than any other framework I personally know of, without compromising any of
the power of Tapestry. 2.4 should be going to beta in the near future.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tapestry-developer-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
> [mailto:tapestry-developer-admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On
> Behalf Of Yunfeng Hou
> Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:15 PM
> To: tapestry-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: [Tapestry-developer] Compare to SOFIA
>
>
> Sofia, from http://sourceforge.net/projects/salmon/,
> is a web framework much like Tapestry I think. I like
> Tapestry a lot but still feel the pain that too much
> config files to write. Add or remove components
> involves 3 places to sync, the web page, the page
> spec, and java code.
> The day I saw SOFIA I understood we might have our
> life simpler. Sofia does not have page spec, and it
> uses jsp tag to define a controller class used in the
> page, which is pretty much the page class of Tapestry,
> and use different jsp tags for different components
> with unique names embedded within the controller tag.
> In the controller class, all such components are
> public fields with same name. This way, the framework
> knows every thing to render the page while do not need
> a third spec file to describe the relationship. It
> also makes it possible to have a generator to generate
> the controller class from the page.
> I think, probably I am wrong, that it is not hard and
> will not cost too much to implement in the future
> version of Tapestry without change the framework a
> lot. I believe the benifit is huge. :-)
>
> Yunfeng Hou
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most
comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#,
Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge
_______________________________________________
Tapestry-developer mailing list Tapestry-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
Re: [Tapestry-developer] Compare to SOFIA
Posted by "F.R. Da Costa Gomez" <dc...@fixed.com>.
Fair enough, I will try to keep it as straightforward as I can.
I'll start by trying to set the background and follow with the more
specific stuff .
Using old-style classical tech like RDBMS with SQL didn't go down well
with me so I started to look for something more intuitive.
Something more closely related to the point and ask behaviour of a human
(nothing human about SQL). I point at something and say: "Thats what I
want in green with red buttons and ...".
Enter OO which captures the essence quite nicely with its classes/
instances and properties/ attributes. Now the only thing left is
persistent objects (opposed to transient ones).
Long story short. It took me about 3 years and looking at lots of OODBs
before I ended up with GOODS (http://www.garret.ru/~knizhnik/goods.html).
This open-source OODB is pretty nicely put together, has got C++ AND a
JAVA API and basically works without too much hassle.
I am slapping a self-maintaining index structure on it which allows
point and shoot querying (it smells like it can actually be extended to
Google-like querying) and basically does away with the infamous DBA.
Put a generic poolable dataMgr on it and no worries. Just throw your
object (unstructured query or data) to the DataMgr and it takes care of
the rest.
Now I come to Tapestry. Looking at separation of the UI - LOGIC -
DATA(MGR) structure it should be fairly obvious that Tapestry fitted the
UI - LOGIC bill quite nicely.
Having spent approx 3 weeks now on Tapestry it seems to me that a Visit
object could be represented by/ linked to a persistent user object
(either with or without its allowed operations).
The BaseEngine would basically take care of 'communicating' to the
ServiceMgr (LOGIC bit) which in its turn does the comming to the
DataMgr. For now this is the rough structure I'm looking at.
As you can see I am NOT worrying anymore about mappings or Obj-Rel
translations or other old-fashioned classic stuff. I just use objects
everywhere (actually I don't even have to worry about an object being
persistent or transient, once I have a handle I just take it from there
as usual).
Sorry if the answer is a tad longish but my persistent object could be
anything and I am just starting to hook it all into Tapestry. I can see
the advantages and possibilities but I DO need to get to grips with
Tapestry pronto (to make things worse I am not a programming whiz just
an economist that knows about problems and programming).
Any comments or constructive remarks are appreciated (though a seperate
thread might be more appropriate)
Cheers
Fermin Da Costa Gomez
Neil Clayton wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Friday 21 Feb 2003 12:50 pm, F.R. Da Costa Gomez wrote:
>...
>
>
>>It looks like my life however will be made even more pleasant by the
>>fact I'm using persistent objects instead of relational mapping stuff.
>>If people are interested I can put forward some more info, if not I will
>>not bother anybody.
>>
>>
>
>What kind of persistent object's are you referring to here?
>Wondering if you are talking about something you have integrated into the
>Tapestry f/w, or something else... Im interested :-)
>
>Neil
>
>
Re: [Tapestry-developer] Compare to SOFIA
Posted by Neil Clayton <ne...@cloudnine.net.nz>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday 21 Feb 2003 12:50 pm, F.R. Da Costa Gomez wrote:
...
> It looks like my life however will be made even more pleasant by the
> fact I'm using persistent objects instead of relational mapping stuff.
> If people are interested I can put forward some more info, if not I will
> not bother anybody.
What kind of persistent object's are you referring to here?
Wondering if you are talking about something you have integrated into the
Tapestry f/w, or something else... Im interested :-)
Neil
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQE+V0hnLXcfQF3yrNoRAk1JAKCSWU1nGQM6HY9g1RnkTKvsEUfs3wCgqHBU
GtBVWfwUSkumPYjm3VT9W7w=
=hlyr
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: [Tapestry-developer] Compare to SOFIA
Posted by "F.R. Da Costa Gomez" <dc...@fixed.com>.
Just having started with Tapestry a couple of weeks ago I'm now starting
to get to grips with it (using the vlib example).
Howard, your suggestion ... to have a peek at 2.4 ... does that imply
that there are also modifications in the tutorials etc. or do these
changes only become apparent in the example code (like the vlib example).
The reason for asking is twofold:
1. I had better stop going through 2.3 and start with 2.4 &
2. I created a Spindle build.xml that allows me to do more extensive
Eclipse project setup and no-worries Tomcat deployment (could probably
be used for non-eclipse project as well). Maybe I need to start checking
Spindle as well against 2.4.
I have been looking at approx. a zillion ui components to put against my
generic service & oodb-mgr but this seems to be the first effort that
comes close. Thx 4 that.
It looks like my life however will be made even more pleasant by the
fact I'm using persistent objects instead of relational mapping stuff.
If people are interested I can put forward some more info, if not I will
not bother anybody.
Cheers,
Fermin da Costa Gomez
Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
>The Tapestry Developer list is for the developers of Tapestry to discuss the
>framework out vote on orders of business. This message is more appropriate
>to the tapestry-users list.
>
>We are aware of the shortcomings of Tapestry (through release 2.3) in terms
>of ease of adoption; you should take a peek at Tapestry 2.4 (now in alpha).
>It has a huge number of improvements that make it easier to adopt Tapestry
>than any other framework I personally know of, without compromising any of
>the power of Tapestry. 2.4 should be going to beta in the near future.
>
>--
>Howard M. Lewis Ship
>Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components
>http://jakarta.apache.org/proposals/tapestry
>
>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: tapestry-developer-admin@lists.sourceforge.net
>>[mailto:tapestry-developer-admin@lists.sourceforge.net] On
>>Behalf Of Yunfeng Hou
>>Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 9:15 PM
>>To: tapestry-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
>>Subject: [Tapestry-developer] Compare to SOFIA
>>
>>
>>Sofia, from http://sourceforge.net/projects/salmon/,
>>is a web framework much like Tapestry I think. I like
>>Tapestry a lot but still feel the pain that too much
>>config files to write. Add or remove components
>>involves 3 places to sync, the web page, the page
>>spec, and java code.
>>The day I saw SOFIA I understood we might have our
>>life simpler. Sofia does not have page spec, and it
>>uses jsp tag to define a controller class used in the
>>page, which is pretty much the page class of Tapestry,
>>and use different jsp tags for different components
>>with unique names embedded within the controller tag.
>>In the controller class, all such components are
>>public fields with same name. This way, the framework
>>knows every thing to render the page while do not need
>>a third spec file to describe the relationship. It
>>also makes it possible to have a generator to generate
>>the controller class from the page.
>>I think, probably I am wrong, that it is not hard and
>>will not cost too much to implement in the future
>>version of Tapestry without change the framework a
>>lot. I believe the benifit is huge. :-)
>>
>>Yunfeng Hou
>>
>>__________________________________________________
>>Do you Yahoo!?
>>Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
>>
>>
>http://taxes.yahoo.com/
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.net email is sponsored by: SlickEdit Inc. Develop an edge. The most
>comprehensive and flexible code editor you can use. Code faster. C/C++, C#,
>Java, HTML, XML, many more. FREE 30-Day Trial. www.slickedit.com/sourceforge
>_______________________________________________
>Tapestry-developer mailing list Tapestry-developer@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>