> I think the first question that we need to ask ourselves is which of this > new stuff is worth to spend some time integrating them into Tapestry and/or > Tapestry-IoC.
You are right - this is the question we need to answer first. Maybe this thread can help :) > Not technically correct. Tapestry is already integrated with Spring. I can > inject a Tapestry service exactly the same way I would inject a Tapestry-IoC > service. Tapestry-IoC already has some hooks to plug objects built > elsewhere. You caught me - the spring integration is available. So we need to discuss if we want to integrate with JSR-299 (and EJBs, which if I got it correct now are sitting on top) as well. >> Things I really miss are: >> * JSR-303: Beans validation > > This integration has already started, just not released yet. More info here: > http://tapestry.formos.com/nightly/tapestry5/tapestry-beanvalidator/ Thanks for the hint, great to hear! >> * JSR-299: Contexts and Dependency Injection >> * JSR-330: Dependency Injection for Java > > There was a discussion about JSR 330 in the dev mailing list. JSR 330 is > based on Guice. Tapestry-IoC was partly inspired by Guice, so I guess the > integration will not be difficult to implement. No discussion about 299 yet. I've read the discussion about JSR-330, but it stopped. Maybe there was not enough interest. >> I understand if you say that its not worth the effort or too hard to >> accomplish - > > Everyone is invited to contribute, committers or not. I know - but I fear my knowledge about the internals of tapestry are not good enough to make s.th. like this happen. >> Let's take a look at Wicket, the main competitior: they already have >> it. Struts2 also has a experimental implementation of JSR-299. Seam / >> JSF2 is the source of all this. > > JSF sucks, by the way. :) And that's why I want to be able to use tapestry :-) But.. to be fair: Seam and now JSF2 got a lot of things right as well. > A question: how many people/organizations/whatever really care for > standards? How much they care? I don't know the answer. > These JSRs are very, very young, so we can't be really sure whether they > will be adopted. JDO is a JSR and very few people use it. > A standard by itself is as useful as the number of people that use them. My experience is that people and companies care a lot about standards. Even small and mid sized companies see the value. It's a lot easier to find developers, and most decision makers are afraid to be left alone with their stack in a few years if they don't go with standards. About the argument that these JSRs are young. Sure they are, but it's just the specification of something that has proven to be useful and is already used in a lot of deployments... can't really imagine anyone using JSF without Seam (but I've heard about some brave people doing so). The comparision with JDO is bad: it was, as far as I know, never included in a JavaEE Spec. Piero --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
