The fact that there is widespread interest in such an Asset shows that the Tapestry design in the area of assets is under-generalized. I don't believe that we should have to write a new class of asset for every new method of image (or any mime content for that matter) retrieval that comes along. The dynamic charting demonstration application would not have required a custom asset if Tapestry was properly generalized for image handling and neither would the problem of images in a database.
In WebObjects I would not have to write special components and services depending on where my images come from or how they are generated. The retrieval or generation of images needs to be decoupled from the vending of images. The image tapestry component should simply be passed an image, regardless of where that image came from. The logic for providing that image to the View layer should reside in the Control layer. In my mind, the very name "Asset" is not general enough. An asset implies that the resource somehow "belongs" to the application. And indeed, this is true of the resources that Tapestry's asset system is currently designed for-- icons and style sheets. But images that are sitting "at large" on the filesystem, and can be manipulated by many different applications, do not belong to the Tapestry application. The Tapestry asset system is biased in favor of resources that the application knows about at development time. But a properly generalized design would assume that all knowledge of the resource would be provided dynamically, and the case where the resources "belong" to the application would be a specialization of that general system. I would really like to generate some discussion about a redesign in this area. It's clear from the mailing list that this is one of the most frequently encountered shortcomings of Tapestry. Joe >From: "LundakJiri" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: [Tapestry-developer] Assets stored in database >Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 10:15:05 +0200 > >Adam Greene wrote: > > We are actually working on a Database Asset for a project that we are >doing. > > I can send you the code when we are done. > >Hi, > >I would also be very interested in a database asset. >Would you mind contributing the code to the community? > >Regards > >Jiri Lundak >Switzerland > > >------------------------------------------------------- >This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek >Got root? We do. >http://thinkgeek.com/sf >_______________________________________________ >Tapestry-developer mailing list >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer Joseph Panico [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Got root? We do. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
