I think you've misunderstood my beef. You could just as easily replace the word "wicket" with "elves" and I would be no less annoyed by the implication that this feature - which is a very large feature that no current Tapestry developer is likely to use anytime soon - is more important because of the fact that elves are working on it.
Combine this annoyance with repeating the exact same reasoning in blog comments / user forums / developer lists and jira issues makes it all the more annoying. On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I clearly have a different POV, but I don't necessarily think > comparing Tapestry to something else is all that bad. Every framework has > something that it does better than others. People see it and naturally want > it their framework of choice. So long as what they want isn't fundamentally > at odds with how the framework is structured, I don't see that being a > particularly big problem. > > For example, I went to Django land for a little while after T4 and before T5 > just to try something new. Django has some interesting ideas that I would > love to see implemented in Tapestry. On the whole, however, I don't think > Django even comes close to what Tapestry can provide. I definitely don't > want to see Tapestry become Django, but there's no reason not to make a good > framework better by using someone else's ideas. > > FWIW, I haven't really gotten drawn into the Wicket / Tapestry debate and > don't know much about it, other than that for whatever reason, one exists. > So, I could very well be looking at the issue naively. > > -- > Kevin > > <snipped> -- Jesse Kuhnert Tapestry / OGNL / Dojo team member/developer Open source based consulting work centered around dojo/tapestry/tacos/hivemind. http://blog.opencomponentry.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
