You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Marcus Schmidke <ma...@prosystemsit.de> on 2007/08/27 09:58:03 UTC
Anybody's developing "object oriented"?
Hello all,
I'm in the unlucky situation that I have to give up working with my favourite Web Framework - Apple's WebObjects - in favor to something that is more
J2EE-homed and more open source (seems that WO will be this too at some time, but even then - no chance) and more portal-ready.
Perhaps I will be forced to use JSF, but if I have some good arguments, perhaps there is a small chance to push some other framework - Tapestry, for
example.
I've experimented a little with JSF and was totally disappointed. The main things I missed comparing to my previous-millennium-framework were:
- working iterators, especially with a dynamic number of input fields and buttons in the iterator body
- object oriented developing
- component oriented developing
"Object oriented developing" means: imagine a list of objects I want to display in a list box. I want to write a method which extracts a displayable
string, but that's already all. I think it's the framework's problem to generate HTML-able VALUE-Strings and to convert those strings back to objects.
My previous millennium framework had absolutely no problem doing this for me - it simply numbered the elements and the only thing I had to do is to
make sure that the Collection of objects was the same at the beginning of the next action request.
Frustrated like this I had a look at Tapestry, which was invented in memory of WebObjects.
Most of my JSF-problems seem to have a Tapestry-solution, that's fine. But, oh no, what is this "ValueEncoder"-thing??? Don't say it is what I'm
afraid of it might be ...
Any comments?
Regards,
Marcus.
_____________________________________________________________________
prosystems IT GmbH
Anwendungsentwicklung
Postfach 31 51
53021 Bonn (Germany)
Tel: 0228 / 3366 - 3329, Fax: 0228 / 3366 - 73329
mailto:Marcus.Schmidke@prosystemsIT.de http://www.prosystemsIT.de
Amtsgericht Bonn - HR B 13189
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Vassilios Timiliotis, Richard Adams
Der Austausch von Nachrichten mit der prosystems IT GmbH via E-Mail dient ausschliesslich Informationszwecken. Rechtsgeschaeftliche Erklaerungen
duerfen ueber dieses Medium nicht ausgetauscht werden. Verfaelschungen des urspruenglichen Inhaltes dieser Nachricht bei der Datenuebertragung koennen
nicht ausgeschlossen werden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Anybody's developing "object oriented"?
Posted by Ognen Ivanovski <og...@netcetera.com.mk>.
On 2007-08-27, at 09:58, Marcus Schmidke wrote:
> Most of my JSF-problems seem to have a Tapestry-solution, that's
> fine. But, oh no, what is this "ValueEncoder"-thing??? Don't say it
> is what I'm
> afraid of it might be ...
>
I am working on a solution that I will post on the Tapestry wiki as
soon as I get it nice enough. This will give you what you want when
you are using Hibernate for your objects. I think I will be able to
post that in about 2-3 days, time permitting.
Cheers,
Ognen
--
Ognen Ivanovski | ognen.ivanovski [at] netcetera.com.mk
phone +389 -2- 30 64 532 | fax +389 -2- 30 79 495
Netcetera | 1000 Skopje | Macedonia | http://netcetera.com.mk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Anybody's developing "object oriented"?
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
> Most of my JSF-problems seem to have a Tapestry-solution, that's fine. But, oh no, what is this "ValueEncoder"-thing??? Don't say it is what I'm
> afraid of it might be ...
One reason WebObjects wasn't popular is that it was a total resource
hog. It made no real attempts at scalabilty; it would just keep loads
of objects live in the session. That's great for simplifying things
for the coder, but bad for the user (bookmarkable, pretty URLs
anyone)?
Tapestry cuts a middle path; for some thing you have to get your hands
a little dirty to help out Tapestry on the things it can't
automatically do. Those are few and far between, but when it comes
for dealing with database entities, you do need to get involved.
On the other hand, the Hibernate integration will grow, in the future,
to handle this automatically for you (much as Trails can do today, in
Tapestry 4).
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Partner and Senior Architect at Feature50
Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: Anybody's developing "object oriented"?
Posted by Daniel Jue <te...@gmail.com>.
I have put up two examples on the wiki for doing this easily, when you are
working with objects that need to display themselves. In one, you just
specify the name of the field in the value encoder and selection model, like
"displayName", and it will call "getDisplayName()" on your objects to
display them.
In the other example, you must make your objects implement a simple
interface that includes one method for displaying the HTML-able string.
Both are really simple to use. Tapestry also has built in support for less
sophisticated objects, like a list of Strings or Integers.
http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry/Tapestry5DisplayableSelectionModel
On 8/27/07, Marcus Schmidke <ma...@prosystemsit.de> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> I'm in the unlucky situation that I have to give up working with my
> favourite Web Framework - Apple's WebObjects - in favor to something that is
> more
> J2EE-homed and more open source (seems that WO will be this too at some
> time, but even then - no chance) and more portal-ready.
>
> Perhaps I will be forced to use JSF, but if I have some good arguments,
> perhaps there is a small chance to push some other framework - Tapestry, for
> example.
>
> I've experimented a little with JSF and was totally disappointed. The main
> things I missed comparing to my previous-millennium-framework were:
>
> - working iterators, especially with a dynamic number of input fields and
> buttons in the iterator body
> - object oriented developing
> - component oriented developing
>
> "Object oriented developing" means: imagine a list of objects I want to
> display in a list box. I want to write a method which extracts a displayable
> string, but that's already all. I think it's the framework's problem to
> generate HTML-able VALUE-Strings and to convert those strings back to
> objects.
> My previous millennium framework had absolutely no problem doing this for
> me - it simply numbered the elements and the only thing I had to do is to
> make sure that the Collection of objects was the same at the beginning of
> the next action request.
>
> Frustrated like this I had a look at Tapestry, which was invented in
> memory of WebObjects.
>
> Most of my JSF-problems seem to have a Tapestry-solution, that's fine.
> But, oh no, what is this "ValueEncoder"-thing??? Don't say it is what I'm
> afraid of it might be ...
>
> Any comments?
>
> Regards,
>
> Marcus.
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
> prosystems IT GmbH
> Anwendungsentwicklung
> Postfach 31 51
> 53021 Bonn (Germany)
>
> Tel: 0228 / 3366 - 3329, Fax: 0228 / 3366 - 73329
> mailto:Marcus.Schmidke@prosystemsIT.de http://www.prosystemsIT.de
> Amtsgericht Bonn - HR B 13189
> Geschaeftsfuehrer: Vassilios Timiliotis, Richard Adams
>
>
> Der Austausch von Nachrichten mit der prosystems IT GmbH via E-Mail dient
> ausschliesslich Informationszwecken. Rechtsgeschaeftliche Erklaerungen
> duerfen ueber dieses Medium nicht ausgetauscht werden. Verfaelschungen des
> urspruenglichen Inhaltes dieser Nachricht bei der Datenuebertragung koennen
> nicht ausgeschlossen werden.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: Anybody's developing "object oriented"?
Posted by Kalle Korhonen <ka...@gmail.com>.
On 8/27/07, Marcus Schmidke <ma...@prosystemsit.de> wrote:
>
> I'm in the unlucky situation that I have to give up working with my
> favourite Web Framework - Apple's WebObjects - in favor to something that is
> more
> J2EE-homed and more open source (seems that WO will be this too at some
> time, but even then - no chance) and more portal-ready.
> Perhaps I will be forced to use JSF, but if I have some good arguments,
> perhaps there is a small chance to push some other framework - Tapestry, for
> example.
> I've experimented a little with JSF and was totally disappointed. The main
> things I missed comparing to my previous-millennium-framework were:
I used to do JSF develoment before. JSF 1.2 + Facelet + Spring Web Flow /
Seam is bearable, but still way more XML and you are giving away a lot of
control how you do things. Some problems are extremely difficult to solve in
JSF if the framework doesn't support your use case.
"Object oriented developing" means: imagine a list of objects I want to
> display in a list box. I want to write a method which extracts a displayable
> string, but that's already all. I think it's the framework's problem to
> generate HTML-able VALUE-Strings and to convert those strings back to
> objects.
> My previous millennium framework had absolutely no problem doing this for
> me - it simply numbered the elements and the only thing I had to do is to
> make sure that the Collection of objects was the same at the beginning of
> the next action request.
> Frustrated like this I had a look at Tapestry, which was invented in
> memory of WebObjects.
Most of my JSF-problems seem to have a Tapestry-solution, that's fine. But,
> oh no, what is this "ValueEncoder"-thing??? Don't say it is what I'm
> afraid of it might be ...
Trails (http://trailsframework.org/) would do this and any more things for
you. Tapestry gives you a lot of control in how to do things and Trails
provides reasonable default in many cases but which you can override and
customize to your liking.
Kalle