>
> I am sure that many have asked this but I am curious as the differences
> between WebObjects and Tapestry, what have you 'fixed' about web objects
in
> creating Tapestry?
Tapestry isn't WebObjects, it is inspired by WebObjects. It is much easier
to do a thing once you know it can
be done ... that's Tapestry. Along the way, I wanted to build in some things
that are hard to add at a later date,
like the support for component deployment (assets, including private
assets), localization, and exception reporting.
>
> I am a beginner WebObjects (just bought it) user and an experienced
> JSP/servlet guy, I am looking for the 'ultimate' RAD tool and have this
> daunting task ahead of me in deciding which way to go. I am even
considering
> looking at Macromedia JRUN4 with their FLASH remoting feature but I am not
> convinced that it is nothing more that window dressing ...
I'm still not convinced on the FlashMX stuff that it will work in a team
environment.
They claim that you have a UI guy create the UI and hook it up to
ActionScript
developed seperately (not to mention Java code as EJBs and such) ... but
seems like
you'd have to have a lot of the UI created before you could hook up the
ActionScript;
that requires a lot of work from the UI guy before Java guys can test their
code.
Oh well, a little off subject.
>
> I am fascinated by EOF and it's promise, but I am just beginning to get
into
> it and I can see problems associated with it. So I am wondering if using
EOF
> is just trading up SQL related problems for EOF related problems? And if
you
> know your SQL fairly well then does using this kind of framework offer
very
> much? I mention this because I believe you guys are working on something
not
> unlike EOF.
If you treat EOF (or, in the future, Sabertooth) like voodoo black magic,
you can get burned,
usually when you do something silly like perform a query that hits every row
of you terabyte
sized database. Sabertooth will allow much more uniformity in your code and
again,
less code == less bugs.
>
> Finally do these types of frameworks (WebObjects and Tapestry) offer
> anything to the practically solo guy like me who keeps his code separate
> from HTML by creating classes that build the dynamic
> html elements in the beans and gets them into the page with the
> <%=myBean.methodThatBuildsElement%>?
Yes, less code == less bugs. Everyone makes coding mistakes ... I consider
myself
a monster coder, but Tapestry has its share of bugs. Tapestry solves some
hard problems
for you. Even if, in phase 1, you don't use some features your customers
are going to want
stuff in phase 2 ("Hey, let's makes it work in German!").
-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by: Jabber Inc.
Don't miss the IM event of the season | Special offer for OSDN members!
JabConf 2002, Aug. 20-22, Keystone, CO http://www.jabberconf.com/osdn
_______________________________________________
Tapestry-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
