Em Sat, 19 Dec 2009 20:08:52 -0200, Piero Sartini <[email protected]>
escreveu:
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.
Being the smaller one, I think we need to focus on JSR 330 first, 299
later.
I've read the discussion about JSR-330, but it stopped. Maybe there
was not enough interest.
JSR 330 had just been announced at that time. ;)
I know - but I fear my knowledge about the internals of tapestry are
not good enough to make s.th. like this happen.
Regarding 330, it's not Tapestry itself, but Tapestry-IoC alone. Read the
sources: you can learn a lot of them, and not just about the framework.
Most of what I know about Tapestry came from reading the sources.
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.
But, AFAIK, they can't fix (because of backward compatibility) the very
complex lifecycle. And writing a component in Tapestry is still way
simpler and faster than in JSF 2.
The comparision with JDO is bad: it was, as far as I know, never
included in a JavaEE Spec.
My point was about specifications at large, not just the Java EE ones. JDO
is JSR 12: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/first/jsr012/
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
Independent Java, Apache Tapestry 5 and Hibernate consultant, developer,
and instructor
Owner, software architect and developer, Ars Machina Tecnologia da
Informação Ltda.
http://www.arsmachina.com.br
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
