I'm not sure, Kent sort of dropped out of the project, but is still a
committer.
Kent had a very different view of what Tapestry 5 should be, and it really
was more like Wicket. It was Tapestry without the concept of parameters and
bindings ... really a lot more like Swing. A container, such as a page,
would have to write code to set any and all properties of each embedded
component before it rendered. This was counter to my personal view of
Tapestry, one in which Tapestry weaves together the functioning
application from a minimum of configuration. Anyway, this code-heavy but
type-safe approach is closer to the Wicket view.
Caution: We've been having problems with some immature outliers in the
Tapestry community coming in and starting flame wars.
On 5/30/07, Joseph Kobe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,I'm new to Tapestry and was making a search on google to find out some
more about what people are saying about it but came across this post by Kent
Tong-
http://www.nabble.com/Problem-loading-dynamic-image-using-ajax-tf3805423.htmlHasthis
Tapestry book author, high profile user and commiter deflected to
Wicket?This begs the question what attracted him to Wicket? I've heard
recently many, many positivethings about Wicket and I'm tempted to go have a
look at it instead.Does anyone care to give some
comparisons?Regards,Joseph
_
http://www.live.com/?mkt=nl-nl
Live.nl
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
TWD Consulting, Inc.
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator and PMC Chair, Apache Tapestry
Creator, Apache HiveMind
Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support
and project work. http://howardlewisship.com
