It's a choice of backwards compatibility vs. evolution. Certainly I've learned a lot on many fronts (technology, design, marketing, community building) over the last five years. I fully grok and admire the Ruby ethic that is also present in Wicket -- everything in the code. Tapestry is on a glide path in that direction, and 4.0 with or without annotations has some tremendous new features. If I was designing Tapestry from scratch today, it would look a bit more like Wicket, but absolutely would not look exactly the same.
I'll be attending some Wicket sessions and BOFs here at JavaOne. Meanwhile, I've been devoting some effort to creating good, clear, introductory documentation; I've been filling in the Quick Start. http://jakarta.apache.org/tapestry/QuickStart/index.html (note that the tutorial downloads are not yet available) On 6/27/05, Vjeran Marcinko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Vadim Pesochinskiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:55 PM > Subject: Re: Wicket vs Tapestry > > > >I looked it, it is very impressive. User API is slick and slim - > > easy to > > learn, you do not need to read books, it is kind of > > self-documented. Design > > of internals borrows some ideas from Tapestry, I have seen > > IRequestCycle and > > other things. I did not spend enough time to say any more. My > > consern is how > > flexible it will be when you face things that are not supported > > by > > framework. > > Actually, I think that Wicket could maybe be biggest Tapestry's competition, > not JSF. > Being totally java-oriented gives it some big advantages over others, though > it is still too young framework to judge. Since there are no XMLs, strong > typing is present everywhere. > Just for example what java orientation : Tapestry 4.0 introduced feature for > marking components and parameters as deprecated. Wicket doesn't need to. It > can use java standard deprecated mechanism. Subclassing Tapestry components > was problem because .jwc files couldn't be subclassed. Only with recent > annotations it could be done. Wicket don't need it, since everything is java > class, and standard subclassing will do. You don't need register component > to use it, you just put .jar into your classpath, and use like any other > class. And many others... > Don't want t sound like Wicket fan now, just pointing out to some > advantages. There are probably too many features missing, and also this > heavy session use that Wicket don't run away from, has yet to be proved I > guess. > > -V. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
