Well, looking at the docs for SPFC I can see the following differences right off the bat:
It looks a bit more like Swinglets and the others, in that it uses or mimics the Swing APIs. You assemble your pages in code, i.e., create a Form object, add a TextField object and a Button object, and create event handling inner classes and add them as listeners. Behind the scenes, something somewhat similar is happening in Tapestry, but Tapestry does as much as it can declaratively, in XML, rather than in Java code. Anyway, if you're asking why SPFC failed and why Tapestry hasn't, it simply looks like SPFC never made it out of the alpha stage. Almost no documentaiton, almost no Javadoc, no examples. No proof that it's a viable system to anyone outside the project. It's clear the initial developers got sidetracked and lost interest. Tapestry gained a lot because, in parallel with creating it and dumping it into SourceForge, we used it on a medium-sized (175 pages) project at Primix, during which the worst rough edges were smoothed out. Sure, that early pre-1.0 code is pretty darn primitive by todays standards, but by the time folks outside of Primix started seeing Tapestry, they saw something that was already usuable, and getting better every week. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John McNally" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Jakarta General List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2002 8:31 PM Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Tapestry joins Jakarta > I have taken a closer look at Tapestry and it does provide a quite a > different strategy for web application development than Turbine and > probably also Struts. It's very well documented and the code looks well > written also. I would be willing to drop my -1; I would like to hear a > comparison with the failed spfc project though. > > <http://cvs.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/java-spfc/docs/index.html?rev=1.10&conten t-type=text/vnd.viewcvs-markup> > > It seems like a similar idea, or am I wrong? I liked the idea of spfc. > Though the change in perspective needed to think of a webapp in terms of > event driven components was considered too great a stretch, I guess. Is > such an approach gaining more acceptance, or have I missed the point of > Tapestry? > > john mcnally > > On Sat, 2002-10-19 at 16:22, Pier Fumagalli wrote: > > On 19/10/02 19:49, "Andrew C. Oliver" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > So could someone clarify that for me... We're here to promote community > > > software development....as long as they don't overlap? sorry I totally > > > misunderstood the apache way. (especially with all the overlapping > > > projects to the contrary) > > > > I want to start a new project for a new Servlet Container that is not > > Tomcat! :-) Let's see how many fans I'm going to get! :-) > > > > Pier > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:general-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:general-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:general-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
