You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com> on 2005/02/25 18:14:54 UTC
Commited to Tapestry
After several months of testing most of the availble web app
frameworks I've decided to commit to Tapestry for my current project.
Developing some PROCs using other frameworks was very interesting.
I am a big fan of JSF however, I think it needs some serious work and
waiting for Sun to release new versions of their products, well, I
don't have that kind of time and I don't want to fill my project with
"workarounds".
Struts - I've never really liked struts. I would have prefered
WebWork to Struts but their docs are someone lacking/out-dated and it
was difficult to get help.
Spring - There is just too much there for me to try and digest. I
would have used their DAO layer since I am using hibernate also but
their API doesn't work with Hibernate 3 yet and again, I don't want to
halt my project because of it. Plus, their web framework API is still
too Struts/WebWork like.
Tapestry is about the only framework I have found that seems complete.
Like I said, I like JSF because of it's component based architecture,
which is why I like tapestry. Plus, Tapestry seems like it is under
constant development.
Now, finally, to my question. I just downloaded Tapestry 3. I have
Tapestry In Action. Is there anything significantly different in 3
where if I try something in TIA it just won't work and I'll end up
beating my head on the wall. Also, is there an Addendum of sorts
online that lists these differences?
Thanks.
Gregg Bolinger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Michael Henderson <mh...@mac.com>.
Hi,
I agree, with Greg, have a core, shipping with Tapestry and keep
extras in contrib, let others develop component libraries, perhaps
offering a migration path into contrib (voting?, rating?).
One thing I have noticed using Spindle and the Palette is that many of
the components in core and contrib are missing descriptions in the
specifications and some components are missing from the online
component reference. Perhaps we could organize a volunteer effort to
cover this part of Tapestry, keeping component documentation up to date
(including info on CSS classes used in components). The work would be
minimal if parceled out by component.
I'm currently refactoring the palette plugin to support more types of
information in the component browser, I'm aiming for a new folder in
the browser with a listing of component libraries available on the net
which can be downloaded from within Eclipse and automatically added to
project dependencies. The palette will provide links to the library
home page and component reference documentation. I hope this feature
will help new Tapestry users to gain access to these components and
provide a spur to new component publication.
Mike
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by João Paulo Vasconcellos <va...@gmail.com>.
> I would suggest you have a look at the ASP.NET components and how Visual
> Studio.NET allows component placement and property setting in a page. The
> only successful web-based component framework out there, like it or not is
> asp.net. JSF isn't even remotely near asp.net.
It's not. Visual Stuido is built over the base costructed by
WebObjects and Weblogics Workshop. Many of the new features .Net
developers are praising were avaliable in weblogics for a year or so.
And the ability to drag and drop class properties and link it to html
components in WebObjects is there for years now.
Of course, by successful in this context, I understand that you mean a
tool that greatly increases the productivity when using it. If by
successful you understand the most marketed and widely used, I must
agree with you about .Net. I just wanted to let my 2 cents to show
that Visual Studio is anything but original and those concepts are
there for years.
--
João Paulo Vasconcellos
MSN: vasconcellos@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by John Reynolds <jo...@gmail.com>.
I created a project at java.net that is focused on examples on how to
use components.
https://tapestrywebcomponentexamples.dev.java.net/
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 12:47:13 -0800, Jin Lee <ji...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to offer my 2 cents on this whole subject.
>
> As a beginning-intermediate java programmer (just recently got my
> javac programmer and web component developer certifications) and
> tapestry newbie, it really hasn't been too hard for me to get started
> and be productive with tapestry. As with any new technology/framework,
> I always do the same thing: sign up for the mailing list, buy a book,
> and check out online-documentation.
>
> Not to say that tapestry documentation is perfect, but it is much
> better than other open source web frameworks. The mailing list here is
> very active, Howard's book and Kent Tong's tutorials have been great,
> and I often find myself looking at the online doc's for reference
> (mostly contrib).
>
> I agree with Howard. We, the users, should be developing more
> components and releasing them under contrib or something related. For
> me, I can't wait until I get up to speed so that I can release some
> cool stuff (hopefully). I work right next to a .NET developer and do
> get a tiny feeling of "component envy".
>
> I think it would be really cool if we had an online webapp that
> focused on free tapestry components, something similar to sourceforge.
> Heck, I'll make it if that meant more components coming our way! :)
>
> Jin Lee
>
>
> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:10:04 +0000, sales <sa...@digiatlas.net> wrote:
> >
> > I think it would be nice if there was a set of documentation with proper
> > examples of how to do specific things - a bit like a cookbook.
> >
> > For instance, as far as I know there is nothing on how to change the way
> > the navigation bar on contrib:Table looks - or how to add one down the
> > bottom. Sure, there's some huge bit of code with a complete example of
> > a table, but that's so off-putting. Some gurus out there may love to
> > trawl through a everything+kitchen-sink example to find the one small
> > part they want. I don't.
> >
> > In my 20 years in IT I've always found the best way to learn something
> > is in small bite-sized examples that explain specific features. I have a
> > job to do and the last thing I want to do is have to trawl through and
> > understand a huge example just to locate the bit I need for my work.
> >
> > That's not to say huge examples are out of place - an example which
> > "puts it all together" is a good thing, but only when you have an
> > understanding of all the individual bits in the first place.
> >
> > As for "Tapestry in Action" - I think it's a good book. However, there
> > should be a set of documentation which contains the essential info from
> > the book available on-line for free. To just have a pointer saying "for
> > documentation buy this book" is not going to work very well.
> >
> > I also add my voice to calls for a searchable archive. I find it very
> > odd that an on-line mailing list has an archive with no real ability to
> > search it. The Powers That Be should make this their number one priority
> > - either get the thing installed/switched on/whatever or move this list
> > to a service that does provide the facility.
> >
> > dd
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Jin Lee <ji...@gmail.com>.
I just wanted to offer my 2 cents on this whole subject.
As a beginning-intermediate java programmer (just recently got my
javac programmer and web component developer certifications) and
tapestry newbie, it really hasn't been too hard for me to get started
and be productive with tapestry. As with any new technology/framework,
I always do the same thing: sign up for the mailing list, buy a book,
and check out online-documentation.
Not to say that tapestry documentation is perfect, but it is much
better than other open source web frameworks. The mailing list here is
very active, Howard's book and Kent Tong's tutorials have been great,
and I often find myself looking at the online doc's for reference
(mostly contrib).
I agree with Howard. We, the users, should be developing more
components and releasing them under contrib or something related. For
me, I can't wait until I get up to speed so that I can release some
cool stuff (hopefully). I work right next to a .NET developer and do
get a tiny feeling of "component envy".
I think it would be really cool if we had an online webapp that
focused on free tapestry components, something similar to sourceforge.
Heck, I'll make it if that meant more components coming our way! :)
Jin Lee
On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 13:10:04 +0000, sales <sa...@digiatlas.net> wrote:
>
> I think it would be nice if there was a set of documentation with proper
> examples of how to do specific things - a bit like a cookbook.
>
> For instance, as far as I know there is nothing on how to change the way
> the navigation bar on contrib:Table looks - or how to add one down the
> bottom. Sure, there's some huge bit of code with a complete example of
> a table, but that's so off-putting. Some gurus out there may love to
> trawl through a everything+kitchen-sink example to find the one small
> part they want. I don't.
>
> In my 20 years in IT I've always found the best way to learn something
> is in small bite-sized examples that explain specific features. I have a
> job to do and the last thing I want to do is have to trawl through and
> understand a huge example just to locate the bit I need for my work.
>
> That's not to say huge examples are out of place - an example which
> "puts it all together" is a good thing, but only when you have an
> understanding of all the individual bits in the first place.
>
> As for "Tapestry in Action" - I think it's a good book. However, there
> should be a set of documentation which contains the essential info from
> the book available on-line for free. To just have a pointer saying "for
> documentation buy this book" is not going to work very well.
>
> I also add my voice to calls for a searchable archive. I find it very
> odd that an on-line mailing list has an archive with no real ability to
> search it. The Powers That Be should make this their number one priority
> - either get the thing installed/switched on/whatever or move this list
> to a service that does provide the facility.
>
> dd
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by sales <sa...@digiatlas.net>.
I think it would be nice if there was a set of documentation with proper
examples of how to do specific things - a bit like a cookbook.
For instance, as far as I know there is nothing on how to change the way
the navigation bar on contrib:Table looks - or how to add one down the
bottom. Sure, there's some huge bit of code with a complete example of
a table, but that's so off-putting. Some gurus out there may love to
trawl through a everything+kitchen-sink example to find the one small
part they want. I don't.
In my 20 years in IT I've always found the best way to learn something
is in small bite-sized examples that explain specific features. I have a
job to do and the last thing I want to do is have to trawl through and
understand a huge example just to locate the bit I need for my work.
That's not to say huge examples are out of place - an example which
"puts it all together" is a good thing, but only when you have an
understanding of all the individual bits in the first place.
As for "Tapestry in Action" - I think it's a good book. However, there
should be a set of documentation which contains the essential info from
the book available on-line for free. To just have a pointer saying "for
documentation buy this book" is not going to work very well.
I also add my voice to calls for a searchable archive. I find it very
odd that an on-line mailing list has an archive with no real ability to
search it. The Powers That Be should make this their number one priority
- either get the thing installed/switched on/whatever or move this list
to a service that does provide the facility.
dd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Henri Dupre <he...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 18:38:24 -0500, kranga <kr...@k2d2.org> wrote:
> I think the importance of good doc is also being played down. The user guide
> on the website - the first thing any newbie wants to read is out of date.
> The mailing list archive is not searchable. I would like to fix the search
> on the mailing list. But I don't know how. Contrary to what's been
> mentioned, I think it is far more convenient to read online doc and find an
> answer than have a post and hope someone answers.
I think that Howard somewhat wants users to go for his book for a
complete documentation - I think is a very fair given the amount of
work he has put there -. I'd rather say that the documentation is
confusing if you need to do something precise, it is hard to know
where to look... Maybe the project website should be reorganized like
log4j: call "TApestry in Action" the commercial and complete
documentation and rename the current docs "short documentation" and
provide faq and api. But the excellent tapestry tutorial should be
high in the list of links. That tutorial convinced me to go for
tapestry rather than other technologies.
The mailing list absolutly should be searcheable. I don't get why
apache can't provide a search feature for all the mailing lists.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by kranga <kr...@k2d2.org>.
> Isn't spindle already distributed with Tapestry 3? I don't use
> Eclipse but if I did I would use Spindle. I don't think Tapestry
> needs a whole lot more than what it provides.
I would suggest you have a look at the ASP.NET components and how Visual
Studio.NET allows component placement and property setting in a page. The
only successful web-based component framework out there, like it or not is
asp.net. JSF isn't even remotely near asp.net.
I think the importance of good doc is also being played down. The user guide
on the website - the first thing any newbie wants to read is out of date.
The mailing list archive is not searchable. I would like to fix the search
on the mailing list. But I don't know how. Contrary to what's been
mentioned, I think it is far more convenient to read online doc and find an
answer than have a post and hope someone answers.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg D Bolinger" <gt...@gmail.com>
To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "John Reynolds"
<jo...@gmail.com>
Cc: <dl...@canada.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
> > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > of these are in the contrib library already.
>
> I don't agree 100% with this. I think the core components need to be
> good enough to learn Tapestry with and be usable in an application. I
> like the approach that Sun took with JSF on the components. Provide
> the basics. Let the industry/community create the rest. Whatever is
> in the contrib library, great. But don't make it part of the core.
> Keep it in contrib.
>
> > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > core component.
>
> *Newbies* will ask questions regardless of how much documentation
> there is. It is a lot easier for someone to give the answer than for
> a newbie to actually read. I can't believe you think newbies
> actually read documentation. HA! I've had to catch myself several
> times before posting to this mailing list.
>
> > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > core parts of the Tapestry project.
>
> Isn't spindle already distributed with Tapestry 3? I don't use
> Eclipse but if I did I would use Spindle. I don't think Tapestry
> needs a whole lot more than what it provides. If someone wants to
> make commercial plugins for Tapestry great. Let them. I don't see how
> that affects the Tapestry development team (is it more than just
> Howard BTW?) unless Howard thinks he needs a kick back off of them. ;)
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:20:18 -0600, John Reynolds
> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With respect to more components... Obviously a component framework is
> > only as good as its components, but this needs to be approached from a
> > big picture perspective.
> >
> > Obviously one of the great things about Tapestry is the ability to
> > create your own custom components.... but we need to work together to
> > develop a better set of core components.
> >
> > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > of these are in the contrib library already.
> >
> > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > core component.
> >
> > Perhaps there should be a Tapestry sub-project called Tapestry
> > Components. Howard is the architect of the Framework... but it looks
> > like we need a "Product Manager" for components. Someone to analyze
> > what's there and what's missing. Someone to publish and maintain a
> > road map for component development. This would be a lot of work
> > because doing it right would entail getting input from a wide range of
> > users and developers.
> >
> > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > core parts of the Tapestry project.
> >
> > The Java Server Faces component framework has efforts like this
> > underway that are being driven by commercial concerns. Companies hope
> > to make money off of tools for building JSF applications and of of JSF
> > component libraries. People are being paid to do this sort of stuff.
> > Can Tapestry compete with that? Only time will tell.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by John Reynolds <jo...@gmail.com>.
I can sort of understand (even though I don't agree) keeping Tapestry
lean and mean.... but how about making Contrib a formal sub-project
with it's own Agenda, Roadmap, etc.?
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:55:16 -0500, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 3.0 documentation is gone in 3.1. The new Users Guide is up to
> date. I'll be adding a "getting started" guide. Hopefully, the
> committers/community will help out with some basic tutorials. I'd
> also like to move most of the FAQ stuff out to the Wiki.
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:23:40 -0500, Bryan Lewis <br...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > It's interesting to watch the open-source thing evolve, eh?
> >
> > I nominate John Reynolds and Gregg Bolinger for the Components Product
> > Manager team; they'd balance each other well. :-) Along with the other
> > people who've already been doing it (contrib, Tacos, Tassel, and the
> > FAQ-for-charity guy). Say, that gives me an idea... For a donation to the
> > Multiple Sclerosis Society (to support my annual 150-mile bike ride in
> > August), I'll enhance/test/document a component.
> >
> > I'm not volunteering to update the old User and Developer Guides, though...
> > agreeing with Gregg on the futility of that. That's what the book is for.
> > (Heck, the electronic version of the book is down to $22.50 on the Manning
> > site. Instantly downloadable, printable, searchable, with source code for
> > the examples, synchronized to version 3.0; what's not to like? If you feel
> > it's missing things, write something to the wiki. Sorry for the sermon.) I
> > recommend dropping the old guides from the web site... they carry
> > out-of-date disclaimers but they appear to be causing more confusion for
> > newbies than they're worth.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg D Bolinger" <gt...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "John Reynolds"
> > <jo...@gmail.com>
> > Cc: <dl...@canada.com>
> > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:29 AM
> > Subject: Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
> >
> > > > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > > > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > > > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > > > of these are in the contrib library already.
> > >
> > > I don't agree 100% with this. I think the core components need to be
> > > good enough to learn Tapestry with and be usable in an application. I
> > > like the approach that Sun took with JSF on the components. Provide
> > > the basics. Let the industry/community create the rest. Whatever is
> > > in the contrib library, great. But don't make it part of the core.
> > > Keep it in contrib.
> > >
> > > > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > > > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > > > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > > > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > > > core component.
> > >
> > > *Newbies* will ask questions regardless of how much documentation
> > > there is. It is a lot easier for someone to give the answer than for
> > > a newbie to actually read. I can't believe you think newbies
> > > actually read documentation. HA! I've had to catch myself several
> > > times before posting to this mailing list.
> > >
> > > > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > > > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > > > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > > > core parts of the Tapestry project.
> > >
> > > Isn't spindle already distributed with Tapestry 3? I don't use
> > > Eclipse but if I did I would use Spindle. I don't think Tapestry
> > > needs a whole lot more than what it provides. If someone wants to
> > > make commercial plugins for Tapestry great. Let them. I don't see how
> > > that affects the Tapestry development team (is it more than just
> > > Howard BTW?) unless Howard thinks he needs a kick back off of them. ;)
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:20:18 -0600, John Reynolds
> > > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > With respect to more components... Obviously a component framework is
> > > > only as good as its components, but this needs to be approached from a
> > > > big picture perspective.
> > > >
> > > > Obviously one of the great things about Tapestry is the ability to
> > > > create your own custom components.... but we need to work together to
> > > > develop a better set of core components.
> > > >
> > > > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > > > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > > > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > > > of these are in the contrib library already.
> > > >
> > > > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > > > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > > > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > > > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > > > core component.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps there should be a Tapestry sub-project called Tapestry
> > > > Components. Howard is the architect of the Framework... but it looks
> > > > like we need a "Product Manager" for components. Someone to analyze
> > > > what's there and what's missing. Someone to publish and maintain a
> > > > road map for component development. This would be a lot of work
> > > > because doing it right would entail getting input from a wide range of
> > > > users and developers.
> > > >
> > > > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > > > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > > > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > > > core parts of the Tapestry project.
> > > >
> > > > The Java Server Faces component framework has efforts like this
> > > > underway that are being driven by commercial concerns. Companies hope
> > > > to make money off of tools for building JSF applications and of of JSF
> > > > component libraries. People are being paid to do this sort of stuff.
> > > > Can Tapestry compete with that? Only time will tell.
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
The 3.0 documentation is gone in 3.1. The new Users Guide is up to
date. I'll be adding a "getting started" guide. Hopefully, the
committers/community will help out with some basic tutorials. I'd
also like to move most of the FAQ stuff out to the Wiki.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 11:23:40 -0500, Bryan Lewis <br...@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> It's interesting to watch the open-source thing evolve, eh?
>
> I nominate John Reynolds and Gregg Bolinger for the Components Product
> Manager team; they'd balance each other well. :-) Along with the other
> people who've already been doing it (contrib, Tacos, Tassel, and the
> FAQ-for-charity guy). Say, that gives me an idea... For a donation to the
> Multiple Sclerosis Society (to support my annual 150-mile bike ride in
> August), I'll enhance/test/document a component.
>
> I'm not volunteering to update the old User and Developer Guides, though...
> agreeing with Gregg on the futility of that. That's what the book is for.
> (Heck, the electronic version of the book is down to $22.50 on the Manning
> site. Instantly downloadable, printable, searchable, with source code for
> the examples, synchronized to version 3.0; what's not to like? If you feel
> it's missing things, write something to the wiki. Sorry for the sermon.) I
> recommend dropping the old guides from the web site... they carry
> out-of-date disclaimers but they appear to be causing more confusion for
> newbies than they're worth.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg D Bolinger" <gt...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "John Reynolds"
> <jo...@gmail.com>
> Cc: <dl...@canada.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:29 AM
> Subject: Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
>
> > > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > > of these are in the contrib library already.
> >
> > I don't agree 100% with this. I think the core components need to be
> > good enough to learn Tapestry with and be usable in an application. I
> > like the approach that Sun took with JSF on the components. Provide
> > the basics. Let the industry/community create the rest. Whatever is
> > in the contrib library, great. But don't make it part of the core.
> > Keep it in contrib.
> >
> > > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > > core component.
> >
> > *Newbies* will ask questions regardless of how much documentation
> > there is. It is a lot easier for someone to give the answer than for
> > a newbie to actually read. I can't believe you think newbies
> > actually read documentation. HA! I've had to catch myself several
> > times before posting to this mailing list.
> >
> > > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > > core parts of the Tapestry project.
> >
> > Isn't spindle already distributed with Tapestry 3? I don't use
> > Eclipse but if I did I would use Spindle. I don't think Tapestry
> > needs a whole lot more than what it provides. If someone wants to
> > make commercial plugins for Tapestry great. Let them. I don't see how
> > that affects the Tapestry development team (is it more than just
> > Howard BTW?) unless Howard thinks he needs a kick back off of them. ;)
> >
> > Gregg
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:20:18 -0600, John Reynolds
> > <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > With respect to more components... Obviously a component framework is
> > > only as good as its components, but this needs to be approached from a
> > > big picture perspective.
> > >
> > > Obviously one of the great things about Tapestry is the ability to
> > > create your own custom components.... but we need to work together to
> > > develop a better set of core components.
> > >
> > > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > > of these are in the contrib library already.
> > >
> > > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > > core component.
> > >
> > > Perhaps there should be a Tapestry sub-project called Tapestry
> > > Components. Howard is the architect of the Framework... but it looks
> > > like we need a "Product Manager" for components. Someone to analyze
> > > what's there and what's missing. Someone to publish and maintain a
> > > road map for component development. This would be a lot of work
> > > because doing it right would entail getting input from a wide range of
> > > users and developers.
> > >
> > > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > > core parts of the Tapestry project.
> > >
> > > The Java Server Faces component framework has efforts like this
> > > underway that are being driven by commercial concerns. Companies hope
> > > to make money off of tools for building JSF applications and of of JSF
> > > component libraries. People are being paid to do this sort of stuff.
> > > Can Tapestry compete with that? Only time will tell.
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Bryan Lewis <br...@maine.rr.com>.
It's interesting to watch the open-source thing evolve, eh?
I nominate John Reynolds and Gregg Bolinger for the Components Product
Manager team; they'd balance each other well. :-) Along with the other
people who've already been doing it (contrib, Tacos, Tassel, and the
FAQ-for-charity guy). Say, that gives me an idea... For a donation to the
Multiple Sclerosis Society (to support my annual 150-mile bike ride in
August), I'll enhance/test/document a component.
I'm not volunteering to update the old User and Developer Guides, though...
agreeing with Gregg on the futility of that. That's what the book is for.
(Heck, the electronic version of the book is down to $22.50 on the Manning
site. Instantly downloadable, printable, searchable, with source code for
the examples, synchronized to version 3.0; what's not to like? If you feel
it's missing things, write something to the wiki. Sorry for the sermon.) I
recommend dropping the old guides from the web site... they carry
out-of-date disclaimers but they appear to be causing more confusion for
newbies than they're worth.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg D Bolinger" <gt...@gmail.com>
To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "John Reynolds"
<jo...@gmail.com>
Cc: <dl...@canada.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
> > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > of these are in the contrib library already.
>
> I don't agree 100% with this. I think the core components need to be
> good enough to learn Tapestry with and be usable in an application. I
> like the approach that Sun took with JSF on the components. Provide
> the basics. Let the industry/community create the rest. Whatever is
> in the contrib library, great. But don't make it part of the core.
> Keep it in contrib.
>
> > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > core component.
>
> *Newbies* will ask questions regardless of how much documentation
> there is. It is a lot easier for someone to give the answer than for
> a newbie to actually read. I can't believe you think newbies
> actually read documentation. HA! I've had to catch myself several
> times before posting to this mailing list.
>
> > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > core parts of the Tapestry project.
>
> Isn't spindle already distributed with Tapestry 3? I don't use
> Eclipse but if I did I would use Spindle. I don't think Tapestry
> needs a whole lot more than what it provides. If someone wants to
> make commercial plugins for Tapestry great. Let them. I don't see how
> that affects the Tapestry development team (is it more than just
> Howard BTW?) unless Howard thinks he needs a kick back off of them. ;)
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:20:18 -0600, John Reynolds
> <jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > With respect to more components... Obviously a component framework is
> > only as good as its components, but this needs to be approached from a
> > big picture perspective.
> >
> > Obviously one of the great things about Tapestry is the ability to
> > create your own custom components.... but we need to work together to
> > develop a better set of core components.
> >
> > We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> > to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> > We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> > of these are in the contrib library already.
> >
> > The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> > supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> > be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> > question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> > core component.
> >
> > Perhaps there should be a Tapestry sub-project called Tapestry
> > Components. Howard is the architect of the Framework... but it looks
> > like we need a "Product Manager" for components. Someone to analyze
> > what's there and what's missing. Someone to publish and maintain a
> > road map for component development. This would be a lot of work
> > because doing it right would entail getting input from a wide range of
> > users and developers.
> >
> > I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> > project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> > would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> > core parts of the Tapestry project.
> >
> > The Java Server Faces component framework has efforts like this
> > underway that are being driven by commercial concerns. Companies hope
> > to make money off of tools for building JSF applications and of of JSF
> > component libraries. People are being paid to do this sort of stuff.
> > Can Tapestry compete with that? Only time will tell.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com>.
> We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> of these are in the contrib library already.
I don't agree 100% with this. I think the core components need to be
good enough to learn Tapestry with and be usable in an application. I
like the approach that Sun took with JSF on the components. Provide
the basics. Let the industry/community create the rest. Whatever is
in the contrib library, great. But don't make it part of the core.
Keep it in contrib.
> The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> core component.
*Newbies* will ask questions regardless of how much documentation
there is. It is a lot easier for someone to give the answer than for
a newbie to actually read. I can't believe you think newbies
actually read documentation. HA! I've had to catch myself several
times before posting to this mailing list.
> I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> core parts of the Tapestry project.
Isn't spindle already distributed with Tapestry 3? I don't use
Eclipse but if I did I would use Spindle. I don't think Tapestry
needs a whole lot more than what it provides. If someone wants to
make commercial plugins for Tapestry great. Let them. I don't see how
that affects the Tapestry development team (is it more than just
Howard BTW?) unless Howard thinks he needs a kick back off of them. ;)
Gregg
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 09:20:18 -0600, John Reynolds
<jo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With respect to more components... Obviously a component framework is
> only as good as its components, but this needs to be approached from a
> big picture perspective.
>
> Obviously one of the great things about Tapestry is the ability to
> create your own custom components.... but we need to work together to
> develop a better set of core components.
>
> We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
> to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
> We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
> of these are in the contrib library already.
>
> The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
> supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
> be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
> question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
> core component.
>
> Perhaps there should be a Tapestry sub-project called Tapestry
> Components. Howard is the architect of the Framework... but it looks
> like we need a "Product Manager" for components. Someone to analyze
> what's there and what's missing. Someone to publish and maintain a
> road map for component development. This would be a lot of work
> because doing it right would entail getting input from a wide range of
> users and developers.
>
> I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
> project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
> would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
> core parts of the Tapestry project.
>
> The Java Server Faces component framework has efforts like this
> underway that are being driven by commercial concerns. Companies hope
> to make money off of tools for building JSF applications and of of JSF
> component libraries. People are being paid to do this sort of stuff.
> Can Tapestry compete with that? Only time will tell.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by John Reynolds <jo...@gmail.com>.
With respect to more components... Obviously a component framework is
only as good as its components, but this needs to be approached from a
big picture perspective.
Obviously one of the great things about Tapestry is the ability to
create your own custom components.... but we need to work together to
develop a better set of core components.
We need a well thought out set of core components, and the core needs
to be comprehensive (not just simple buttons and validated fields).
We need core components for tables, menus, trees, palletes, etc. Many
of these are in the contrib library already.
The core components need to be extremely well documented, and
supplemented with examples and tutorials. The core components need to
be highly polished and usable... if a thousand newbies ask the same
question about a core component, there may be something wrong with the
core component.
Perhaps there should be a Tapestry sub-project called Tapestry
Components. Howard is the architect of the Framework... but it looks
like we need a "Product Manager" for components. Someone to analyze
what's there and what's missing. Someone to publish and maintain a
road map for component development. This would be a lot of work
because doing it right would entail getting input from a wide range of
users and developers.
I also think that Eclipse plugins should be part of the Tapestry
project. Some folks have already created some great plugins... but it
would help Tapestry at large if some of these were considered to be
core parts of the Tapestry project.
The Java Server Faces component framework has efforts like this
underway that are being driven by commercial concerns. Companies hope
to make money off of tools for building JSF applications and of of JSF
component libraries. People are being paid to do this sort of stuff.
Can Tapestry compete with that? Only time will tell.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Massimo <ml...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 08:30:54 -0500, Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well over two years ago, I designed the namespace and library
> mechanisms for Tapestry to support a component bazaar, with the hopes
> that many powerful, fun, DHTML components would pop up. Only Tapestry
> really provides the necessary infrastructure to support this level of
> sophistication.
>
> Outside of DatePicker, Table and Tree, it largely hasn't happened.
> Why? I was working on the book (the documentation everyone keeps
> claiming is missing), then trying to earn a living. My strengths are
> not on the HTML/DHTML side, so I'm focusing on making Tapestry even
> simpler and more approachable ... and vastly more powerful.
Couldn't it be cause there are more java developers here in the
community then HTML/DHTML ones ?
I think Tapestry is more loved by java programmers other then web
designers so it's natural to not have rich component from a HTML/DHTML
point of view, beside that there's the point that almost all web
app/site are different each one from the others and building rich html
components is not enough to save your time from having to touch the
style of your components next time you use it in a different app.
I see components as a "good stuff TM" in small projects if they can
represent typical small html objects and in big projects when they can
make your life easier developing complex part of the webapp (even if
you cannot completly reutilize then in other projects)
Don't come up on me, i love the idea of web components and that's my
all interest within Tapestry (and BarracudaMVC before), but honestly i
would like to hear from anyone who really build a HTML/DHTML rich
components and have had it used in more then one big projects.
How much of the components developed within TSS could be reused in a
different site ?
> Further, I've been consistently told that "the Portlet train is
> leaving and soon". IBM is expected to bet thier stake in enterprise
> Java on Portlets. For many people, THE key feature of 3.1 will be
> Portlet support.
You're absolutely right!
> Summary:
> - Want more components? Write some! Contribute some!
Right, even if i think Tapestry as almost any kind of components it
can/should deserve.
> - Good documentation IS available.
You mean "Tapestry in Action" and User Guide ?
> - 3.1 raises the technology bar (against JSF) considerably.
I'll try to keep in touch with 3.1 development while trying to learn
more about 3.0 as soon as i can get
> - Portlet support in 3.1 is very important.
Absolutely, coupled with tapestry capabilities in terms of components
i can't imagine how far it can get...
--
Massimo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Christian <ch...@bluepenguin.ch>.
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>- Want more components? Write some! Contribute some!
>
>
Might it be that there indeed are a bunch of Tapestry-components, but
those are not allowed to leave the intranet-boundary in which they reside?
On another note, I also like the idea (written someplace else) to have a
place to simply upload components, and have a mechanism to promote
(voting) good components in order to make them more official, be it
tacos, contrib, whatever...
>- Portlet support in 3.1 is very important.
>
>
I think that support for the main implementations of JSR 168 is crucial.
There is enormous movement in the industry. The portal stuff is, imho,
still on the rising side of the "technology hype curve" (see e.g.
http://www.ayeconference.com/wiki/scribble.cgi?read=HypeCycle). So while
there will come a time of disillusions regarding portlets/portals, it is
still wise to be there already when things settle down, marketing
divisions move to the next pile of food...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Jonathan Millett <jo...@millett.net>.
Howard Lewis Ship wrote:
>I think you need to reflect on how open source projects work. It's
>not a company, there's no ordering of people around. If people don't
>have the time, or the interest, to work on things ... they don't. I
>have a personal stake in Tapestry and drive myself pretty hard. I
>would also estimate that I've invested about $200,000 in Tapestry (in
>the form of lost wages spent on R&D).
>
>
Thank you Howard for everything.
You investment CLEARLY shows and is a SHINING example.
>>- There is a dire need to get up-to-date documentation. Open-source has
>>become a synonym for poor-documentation. A framework will gain a lot of use
>>if documentation is uptodate and comprehensive
>>
Has it?
For me it has become a synonym for a vibrant user community where the
members help each other.
This list is a tremendous documentation resource and learning tool.
I am grateful for everyone's contributions.
Jon
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
RE: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by David Leangen <dl...@canada.com>.
Very well said, Howard.
I have only been around for a few weeks, but it is very clear the huge
investment that you've put into the project. The amount you mention below
does not seem to be an exaggeration at all.
I must commend you for all your great work!!
Cheers,
Dave
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Howard Lewis Ship [mailto:hlship@gmail.com]
> Sent: 26 February 2005 22:31
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
>
>
> Well over two years ago, I designed the namespace and library
> mechanisms for Tapestry to support a component bazaar, with the hopes
> that many powerful, fun, DHTML components would pop up. Only Tapestry
> really provides the necessary infrastructure to support this level of
> sophistication.
>
> Outside of DatePicker, Table and Tree, it largely hasn't happened.
> Why? I was working on the book (the documentation everyone keeps
> claiming is missing), then trying to earn a living. My strengths are
> not on the HTML/DHTML side, so I'm focusing on making Tapestry even
> simpler and more approachable ... and vastly more powerful.
>
> Further, I've been consistently told that "the Portlet train is
> leaving and soon". IBM is expected to bet thier stake in enterprise
> Java on Portlets. For many people, THE key feature of 3.1 will be
> Portlet support.
>
> I think you need to reflect on how open source projects work. It's
> not a company, there's no ordering of people around. If people don't
> have the time, or the interest, to work on things ... they don't. I
> have a personal stake in Tapestry and drive myself pretty hard. I
> would also estimate that I've invested about $200,000 in Tapestry (in
> the form of lost wages spent on R&D).
>
> Summary:
> - Want more components? Write some! Contribute some!
> - Good documentation IS available.
> - 3.1 raises the technology bar (against JSF) considerably.
> - Portlet support in 3.1 is very important.
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:05:14 -0500, kranga <kr...@k2d2.org> wrote:
> > With all due respect, I think the focus on Tapestry 3.1 is not
> in the best
> > interest of the user community. I think -
> >
> > - There is a dire need to get up-to-date documentation. Open-source has
> > become a synonym for poor-documentation. A framework will gain
> a lot of use
> > if documentation is uptodate and comprehensive
> > - The focus should be on components components and components. I've been
> > working on a table component myself that I plan to contribute in the
> > upcoming months that I believe is far more feature rich than
> the palette.
> > Tapestry needs to look at the asp.net component marketplace and compete
> > against that.
> >
> > My inflation adjusted 17 cents
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "Gregg
> D Bolinger"
> > <gt...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Commited to Tapestry
> >
> > > Tapestry in Action covers Tapestry 3.0. There have been minor changes
> > > between 3.0 and 3.0.2.
> > >
> > > Tapestry 3.1 ... that's a whole new kettle of fish. The broad outline
> > > is the same, but the details are much changed (and changing!). But an
> > > upgrade document is definately part of the process (the start of which
> > > is already there).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:54 -0600, Gregg D Bolinger
> <gt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > After several months of testing most of the availble web app
> > > > frameworks I've decided to commit to Tapestry for my
> current project.
> > > > Developing some PROCs using other frameworks was very interesting.
> > > >
> > > > I am a big fan of JSF however, I think it needs some
> serious work and
> > > > waiting for Sun to release new versions of their products, well, I
> > > > don't have that kind of time and I don't want to fill my
> project with
> > > > "workarounds".
> > > >
> > > > Struts - I've never really liked struts. I would have prefered
> > > > WebWork to Struts but their docs are someone
> lacking/out-dated and it
> > > > was difficult to get help.
> > > >
> > > > Spring - There is just too much there for me to try and digest. I
> > > > would have used their DAO layer since I am using hibernate also but
> > > > their API doesn't work with Hibernate 3 yet and again, I
> don't want to
> > > > halt my project because of it. Plus, their web framework
> API is still
> > > > too Struts/WebWork like.
> > > >
> > > > Tapestry is about the only framework I have found that
> seems complete.
> > > > Like I said, I like JSF because of it's component based
> architecture,
> > > > which is why I like tapestry. Plus, Tapestry seems like it is under
> > > > constant development.
> > > >
> > > > Now, finally, to my question. I just downloaded Tapestry 3. I have
> > > > Tapestry In Action. Is there anything significantly different in 3
> > > > where if I try something in TIA it just won't work and I'll end up
> > > > beating my head on the wall. Also, is there an Addendum of sorts
> > > > online that lists these differences?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Gregg Bolinger
> > > >
> > > >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> > >
> > > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Tapestry: 3.1 vs. more components
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
Well over two years ago, I designed the namespace and library
mechanisms for Tapestry to support a component bazaar, with the hopes
that many powerful, fun, DHTML components would pop up. Only Tapestry
really provides the necessary infrastructure to support this level of
sophistication.
Outside of DatePicker, Table and Tree, it largely hasn't happened.
Why? I was working on the book (the documentation everyone keeps
claiming is missing), then trying to earn a living. My strengths are
not on the HTML/DHTML side, so I'm focusing on making Tapestry even
simpler and more approachable ... and vastly more powerful.
Further, I've been consistently told that "the Portlet train is
leaving and soon". IBM is expected to bet thier stake in enterprise
Java on Portlets. For many people, THE key feature of 3.1 will be
Portlet support.
I think you need to reflect on how open source projects work. It's
not a company, there's no ordering of people around. If people don't
have the time, or the interest, to work on things ... they don't. I
have a personal stake in Tapestry and drive myself pretty hard. I
would also estimate that I've invested about $200,000 in Tapestry (in
the form of lost wages spent on R&D).
Summary:
- Want more components? Write some! Contribute some!
- Good documentation IS available.
- 3.1 raises the technology bar (against JSF) considerably.
- Portlet support in 3.1 is very important.
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:05:14 -0500, kranga <kr...@k2d2.org> wrote:
> With all due respect, I think the focus on Tapestry 3.1 is not in the best
> interest of the user community. I think -
>
> - There is a dire need to get up-to-date documentation. Open-source has
> become a synonym for poor-documentation. A framework will gain a lot of use
> if documentation is uptodate and comprehensive
> - The focus should be on components components and components. I've been
> working on a table component myself that I plan to contribute in the
> upcoming months that I believe is far more feature rich than the palette.
> Tapestry needs to look at the asp.net component marketplace and compete
> against that.
>
> My inflation adjusted 17 cents
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "Gregg D Bolinger"
> <gt...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Commited to Tapestry
>
> > Tapestry in Action covers Tapestry 3.0. There have been minor changes
> > between 3.0 and 3.0.2.
> >
> > Tapestry 3.1 ... that's a whole new kettle of fish. The broad outline
> > is the same, but the details are much changed (and changing!). But an
> > upgrade document is definately part of the process (the start of which
> > is already there).
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:54 -0600, Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > After several months of testing most of the availble web app
> > > frameworks I've decided to commit to Tapestry for my current project.
> > > Developing some PROCs using other frameworks was very interesting.
> > >
> > > I am a big fan of JSF however, I think it needs some serious work and
> > > waiting for Sun to release new versions of their products, well, I
> > > don't have that kind of time and I don't want to fill my project with
> > > "workarounds".
> > >
> > > Struts - I've never really liked struts. I would have prefered
> > > WebWork to Struts but their docs are someone lacking/out-dated and it
> > > was difficult to get help.
> > >
> > > Spring - There is just too much there for me to try and digest. I
> > > would have used their DAO layer since I am using hibernate also but
> > > their API doesn't work with Hibernate 3 yet and again, I don't want to
> > > halt my project because of it. Plus, their web framework API is still
> > > too Struts/WebWork like.
> > >
> > > Tapestry is about the only framework I have found that seems complete.
> > > Like I said, I like JSF because of it's component based architecture,
> > > which is why I like tapestry. Plus, Tapestry seems like it is under
> > > constant development.
> > >
> > > Now, finally, to my question. I just downloaded Tapestry 3. I have
> > > Tapestry In Action. Is there anything significantly different in 3
> > > where if I try something in TIA it just won't work and I'll end up
> > > beating my head on the wall. Also, is there an Addendum of sorts
> > > online that lists these differences?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Gregg Bolinger
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> >
> > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Commited to Tapestry
Posted by Henri Dupre <he...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:42:17 -0500, Benjamin Tomasini
<bt...@neteverything.com> wrote:
> Sounds like an itch to be scratched. Perhaps someone needs to put
> effort into documentation, and perhaps Tapestry would benefit by more
> user contributed components.
I'd be interested to know what kind and what categories of components
would users be interested in! In my current project, I'm doing very
fine with all Tapestry built-in components and I wrote several
components which are very specific to our application. But I did not
feel any need for more components. Maybe the situation is different
for intranet applications?
Also tapestry in action is a very impressive and well written
documentation of the framework. I still think it should be called the
"commercial complete documentation".
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Fwd: Commited to Tapestry
Posted by Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com>.
Somehow when I hit reply this just went to Benjamin. So here it is
for everyone.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:04:46 -0600
Subject: Re: Commited to Tapestry
To: Benjamin Tomasini <bt...@neteverything.com>
I too see no reason Howard shouldn't put most efforts into 3.1. Let
the community provide the components. The only fear I would have is
components breaking in 3.1 that worked in 3.0.x.
I think Tapestry has pretty good docs compared to a lot of other open
source projects. At least it has a book. Spring's is just now
coming, WebWork, yeah right.
Tonight I have been going through the book again and refreshing my
brain around Tapestry. It solves so many problems so elegantly,
especially compared to JSF. It's a very impressive API. And I am
enjoying developing in it.
Gregg
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 21:42:17 -0500, Benjamin Tomasini
<bt...@neteverything.com> wrote:
> Sounds like an itch to be scratched. Perhaps someone needs to put
> effort into documentation, and perhaps Tapestry would benefit by more
> user contributed components. These sound like great opportunities for
> extra participation from the community. That doesn't mean that 3.1
> should be slowed. I would suggest just the opposite.
>
> My two cents...
>
> I like Tapestry because it has a road map of constant improvement and
> future (deep) refactorings. It just seems like the nature of how things
> are done. This is a good thing, and I don't want to see the core
> developers here (Howard in particular) slowed down writing documentation
> on more legacy features.
>
> I don't know that Howard could ever write enough documentation to
> satisfy everyone. If he tried, we would doubtful have the product we
> have today.
>
> On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 21:05, kranga wrote:
> > With all due respect, I think the focus on Tapestry 3.1 is not in the best
> > interest of the user community. I think -
> >
> > - There is a dire need to get up-to-date documentation. Open-source has
> > become a synonym for poor-documentation. A framework will gain a lot of use
> > if documentation is uptodate and comprehensive
> > - The focus should be on components components and components. I've been
> > working on a table component myself that I plan to contribute in the
> > upcoming months that I believe is far more feature rich than the palette.
> > Tapestry needs to look at the asp.net component marketplace and compete
> > against that.
> >
> > My inflation adjusted 17 cents
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
> > To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "Gregg D Bolinger"
> > <gt...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:20 PM
> > Subject: Re: Commited to Tapestry
> >
> >
> > > Tapestry in Action covers Tapestry 3.0. There have been minor changes
> > > between 3.0 and 3.0.2.
> > >
> > > Tapestry 3.1 ... that's a whole new kettle of fish. The broad outline
> > > is the same, but the details are much changed (and changing!). But an
> > > upgrade document is definately part of the process (the start of which
> > > is already there).
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:54 -0600, Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > After several months of testing most of the availble web app
> > > > frameworks I've decided to commit to Tapestry for my current project.
> > > > Developing some PROCs using other frameworks was very interesting.
> > > >
> > > > I am a big fan of JSF however, I think it needs some serious work and
> > > > waiting for Sun to release new versions of their products, well, I
> > > > don't have that kind of time and I don't want to fill my project with
> > > > "workarounds".
> > > >
> > > > Struts - I've never really liked struts. I would have prefered
> > > > WebWork to Struts but their docs are someone lacking/out-dated and it
> > > > was difficult to get help.
> > > >
> > > > Spring - There is just too much there for me to try and digest. I
> > > > would have used their DAO layer since I am using hibernate also but
> > > > their API doesn't work with Hibernate 3 yet and again, I don't want to
> > > > halt my project because of it. Plus, their web framework API is still
> > > > too Struts/WebWork like.
> > > >
> > > > Tapestry is about the only framework I have found that seems complete.
> > > > Like I said, I like JSF because of it's component based architecture,
> > > > which is why I like tapestry. Plus, Tapestry seems like it is under
> > > > constant development.
> > > >
> > > > Now, finally, to my question. I just downloaded Tapestry 3. I have
> > > > Tapestry In Action. Is there anything significantly different in 3
> > > > where if I try something in TIA it just won't work and I'll end up
> > > > beating my head on the wall. Also, is there an Addendum of sorts
> > > > online that lists these differences?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > Gregg Bolinger
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> > >
> > > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> --
> Benjamin Tomasini
> NetEverything, Inc.
> 1-877-270-1391
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Commited to Tapestry
Posted by Benjamin Tomasini <bt...@neteverything.com>.
Sounds like an itch to be scratched. Perhaps someone needs to put
effort into documentation, and perhaps Tapestry would benefit by more
user contributed components. These sound like great opportunities for
extra participation from the community. That doesn't mean that 3.1
should be slowed. I would suggest just the opposite.
My two cents...
I like Tapestry because it has a road map of constant improvement and
future (deep) refactorings. It just seems like the nature of how things
are done. This is a good thing, and I don't want to see the core
developers here (Howard in particular) slowed down writing documentation
on more legacy features.
I don't know that Howard could ever write enough documentation to
satisfy everyone. If he tried, we would doubtful have the product we
have today.
On Fri, 2005-02-25 at 21:05, kranga wrote:
> With all due respect, I think the focus on Tapestry 3.1 is not in the best
> interest of the user community. I think -
>
> - There is a dire need to get up-to-date documentation. Open-source has
> become a synonym for poor-documentation. A framework will gain a lot of use
> if documentation is uptodate and comprehensive
> - The focus should be on components components and components. I've been
> working on a table component myself that I plan to contribute in the
> upcoming months that I believe is far more feature rich than the palette.
> Tapestry needs to look at the asp.net component marketplace and compete
> against that.
>
> My inflation adjusted 17 cents
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
> To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "Gregg D Bolinger"
> <gt...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:20 PM
> Subject: Re: Commited to Tapestry
>
>
> > Tapestry in Action covers Tapestry 3.0. There have been minor changes
> > between 3.0 and 3.0.2.
> >
> > Tapestry 3.1 ... that's a whole new kettle of fish. The broad outline
> > is the same, but the details are much changed (and changing!). But an
> > upgrade document is definately part of the process (the start of which
> > is already there).
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:54 -0600, Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > After several months of testing most of the availble web app
> > > frameworks I've decided to commit to Tapestry for my current project.
> > > Developing some PROCs using other frameworks was very interesting.
> > >
> > > I am a big fan of JSF however, I think it needs some serious work and
> > > waiting for Sun to release new versions of their products, well, I
> > > don't have that kind of time and I don't want to fill my project with
> > > "workarounds".
> > >
> > > Struts - I've never really liked struts. I would have prefered
> > > WebWork to Struts but their docs are someone lacking/out-dated and it
> > > was difficult to get help.
> > >
> > > Spring - There is just too much there for me to try and digest. I
> > > would have used their DAO layer since I am using hibernate also but
> > > their API doesn't work with Hibernate 3 yet and again, I don't want to
> > > halt my project because of it. Plus, their web framework API is still
> > > too Struts/WebWork like.
> > >
> > > Tapestry is about the only framework I have found that seems complete.
> > > Like I said, I like JSF because of it's component based architecture,
> > > which is why I like tapestry. Plus, Tapestry seems like it is under
> > > constant development.
> > >
> > > Now, finally, to my question. I just downloaded Tapestry 3. I have
> > > Tapestry In Action. Is there anything significantly different in 3
> > > where if I try something in TIA it just won't work and I'll end up
> > > beating my head on the wall. Also, is there an Addendum of sorts
> > > online that lists these differences?
> > >
> > > Thanks.
> > >
> > > Gregg Bolinger
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Howard M. Lewis Ship
> > Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> > Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> > Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
> >
> > Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> > and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Benjamin Tomasini
NetEverything, Inc.
1-877-270-1391
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Commited to Tapestry
Posted by kranga <kr...@k2d2.org>.
With all due respect, I think the focus on Tapestry 3.1 is not in the best
interest of the user community. I think -
- There is a dire need to get up-to-date documentation. Open-source has
become a synonym for poor-documentation. A framework will gain a lot of use
if documentation is uptodate and comprehensive
- The focus should be on components components and components. I've been
working on a table component myself that I plan to contribute in the
upcoming months that I believe is far more feature rich than the palette.
Tapestry needs to look at the asp.net component marketplace and compete
against that.
My inflation adjusted 17 cents
----- Original Message -----
From: "Howard Lewis Ship" <hl...@gmail.com>
To: "Tapestry users" <ta...@jakarta.apache.org>; "Gregg D Bolinger"
<gt...@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Commited to Tapestry
> Tapestry in Action covers Tapestry 3.0. There have been minor changes
> between 3.0 and 3.0.2.
>
> Tapestry 3.1 ... that's a whole new kettle of fish. The broad outline
> is the same, but the details are much changed (and changing!). But an
> upgrade document is definately part of the process (the start of which
> is already there).
>
>
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:54 -0600, Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > After several months of testing most of the availble web app
> > frameworks I've decided to commit to Tapestry for my current project.
> > Developing some PROCs using other frameworks was very interesting.
> >
> > I am a big fan of JSF however, I think it needs some serious work and
> > waiting for Sun to release new versions of their products, well, I
> > don't have that kind of time and I don't want to fill my project with
> > "workarounds".
> >
> > Struts - I've never really liked struts. I would have prefered
> > WebWork to Struts but their docs are someone lacking/out-dated and it
> > was difficult to get help.
> >
> > Spring - There is just too much there for me to try and digest. I
> > would have used their DAO layer since I am using hibernate also but
> > their API doesn't work with Hibernate 3 yet and again, I don't want to
> > halt my project because of it. Plus, their web framework API is still
> > too Struts/WebWork like.
> >
> > Tapestry is about the only framework I have found that seems complete.
> > Like I said, I like JSF because of it's component based architecture,
> > which is why I like tapestry. Plus, Tapestry seems like it is under
> > constant development.
> >
> > Now, finally, to my question. I just downloaded Tapestry 3. I have
> > Tapestry In Action. Is there anything significantly different in 3
> > where if I try something in TIA it just won't work and I'll end up
> > beating my head on the wall. Also, is there an Addendum of sorts
> > online that lists these differences?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Gregg Bolinger
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
> Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
>
> Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
> and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: Commited to Tapestry
Posted by Howard Lewis Ship <hl...@gmail.com>.
Tapestry in Action covers Tapestry 3.0. There have been minor changes
between 3.0 and 3.0.2.
Tapestry 3.1 ... that's a whole new kettle of fish. The broad outline
is the same, but the details are much changed (and changing!). But an
upgrade document is definately part of the process (the start of which
is already there).
On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 11:14:54 -0600, Gregg D Bolinger <gt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> After several months of testing most of the availble web app
> frameworks I've decided to commit to Tapestry for my current project.
> Developing some PROCs using other frameworks was very interesting.
>
> I am a big fan of JSF however, I think it needs some serious work and
> waiting for Sun to release new versions of their products, well, I
> don't have that kind of time and I don't want to fill my project with
> "workarounds".
>
> Struts - I've never really liked struts. I would have prefered
> WebWork to Struts but their docs are someone lacking/out-dated and it
> was difficult to get help.
>
> Spring - There is just too much there for me to try and digest. I
> would have used their DAO layer since I am using hibernate also but
> their API doesn't work with Hibernate 3 yet and again, I don't want to
> halt my project because of it. Plus, their web framework API is still
> too Struts/WebWork like.
>
> Tapestry is about the only framework I have found that seems complete.
> Like I said, I like JSF because of it's component based architecture,
> which is why I like tapestry. Plus, Tapestry seems like it is under
> constant development.
>
> Now, finally, to my question. I just downloaded Tapestry 3. I have
> Tapestry In Action. Is there anything significantly different in 3
> where if I try something in TIA it just won't work and I'll end up
> beating my head on the wall. Also, is there an Addendum of sorts
> online that lists these differences?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Gregg Bolinger
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Jakarta Tapestry
Creator, Jakarta HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@jakarta.apache.org