Wish I had had the foresight five years ago to build in explicit support for a visual builder.
4.0 is adding flexibility to store state in many places, currently in the session (as in 3.0) but also as query parameters / hidden form fields. Further nuances will likely be possible in the future as well ... I'd like to see support for WebObjects style state storage, where multiple versions of the property are stored on the server, and the client includes query parameter to select which version was in effect when the page rendered. On 5/12/05, Karthik Abram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I've build fairly substantial applications with .NET - and I will have to > disagree with some of the points below. True, .NET doesn't have a Hibernate > like persistence layer, but the reality is that while java produced a > zillion persistence options for the "Enterprise" app, ADO.NET's simple > in-memory DataTable approach will suffice for 99% of the apps out there. > That said, .NET 2.0 will change quite a few things ... > > The distinction between .NET and Tapestry is this: (a) State persistence in > the client using the view-state, (b) GUI design tool, components that have a > distince "design time" and "run time" mode of operation (components have an > interface that allow it to interact with VS .NET for design time > manipulation); (c) Thriving commercial component market with some really > slick components. > > Of course the availability of tons of books/literature/websites also makes > the learning curve a lot easier. That said, Tapestry will run on Linux, .NET > requires a licensed OS.s > > -----Original Message----- > From: Patrick Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2005 3:02 AM > To: 'Tapestry users' > Subject: RE: Tapestry's Simplicity Blues > > <snip> > > Thing is that I never worked with JSF or APS.NET to judge Tapestry with > > other component web frameworks. From what I've read around, I sincerely > > doubt that JSF is simplier, but I would really like some expeienced > > ASP.NET > > developer to say his opinion. > > I wouldn't necessarily call myself a .NET expert, but I did prototype a > system in in a few months ago (I decided not to go down that road so I'm > back in java). The short version of my experience. > > .NET does make the simple stuff simple. If you want to build a quick and > dirty CRUD app with only a few forms, .NET is way faster than anything I've > yet found in the java world. Between the WYSIWIG form editor, the component > library, and the magic "don't worry about it, it just works" persistence > strategy they have, it's really easy to do easy stuff. > > But, and here's where .NET and I parted ways, it doesn't have a lot of > features to make the *hard* stuff simple. Want an abstract object > persistence layer like Hibernate? So sorry, roll your own, or use a thin > resultset wrapper like ADO. Want to use lots of generic forms and runtime > data binding? Sorry, it's a design time framework. Sure you *can* bind at > runtime, but if you do you can't use any of the cool features that made the > easy stuff easy. > > All in all, I felt like it was something of a trap for serious development > work. It makes banging together a sketchy prototype really easy, but then > you end up not being able to use any of those easy features on the real > project. > > If somebody would marry the easy-stuff-is-easy part of .NET with the > hard-stuff-is-possible part of hibernate/java/tapestry, I'd switch to it in > a heartbeat. To date though, nobody has pulled it off. If I were a gambling > man, I'd bet on the Eclipse group making a decent go at it in the next > couple of years. > > I'm not all that confident though that the current stable of open source > projects out there (choose your poison) are going to get there though. In my > experience they're usually written by developers who got fed up with crap > like .NET and decided to tackle the interesting "hard stuff" problems > instead of the tedious "easy stuff" issues. So we have at least a half dozen > web application frameworks out there, but nobody has yet written a decent > WYSYWIG gui for any of them (if I'm wrong here I'm 100% certain I'll get 20 > emails about it :). > > In any event, the short version is Tapestry/Hibernate/Java is way more > *powerful* than .NET for the kind of work I do. It's not, however, easier. > > --- Pat > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Jakarta Tapestry Creator, Jakarta HiveMind Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support and project work. http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
