I'm with you on that. Tapestry right now can offer newbies a lot of power and time saving, while at the same time allowing experts to build complex stuff. My perception is that Tapestry isn't quite at its best but will definitely be. Also, I believe that trails and tapestry might be blending in the future.
I have a pretty simple example in my mind: the include component that Robert -or was it someone else?- was discussing several threads ago. It is very simple to use. You only specify the source of the document to be included and voilá! you have included an external document in your template, whatever the file type. But then someone asked for the functionality to strip <html>,<body>,<script> tags. Now that's not what a newbie would know how to do, with whatever framework or tool you tell me -even with a content manager API-. For that, there's the postprocessor property, so of course this leaves the newbie scratching his head but, if he had used Struts, the component wouldn't even exist and the community would have told him to build a customized solution. That is the beauty of Tapestry. On 7/19/05, Robert Zeigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm really curious to know if either of you have looked at trails, > which builds on tapestry, hivemind and (what else, Chris?) to enable > very rapid application development. For the 1000 guys out there who are > building simple crud apps, it's /definitely/ a good place to start. > > As far as "tapestry getting too complex"... while I'm not a tapestry > committer, I've watched the 4.0 developments with considerable interest. > From where I sit, it seems like Howard et. al are pushing to make things > more simple, rather than the other way around. The improved listener > methods are a great example, as is providing the means to defer listener > invocation until the end of form-rewind (now the default; it will help > avoid many of the form "rewind" issues newbies experience). Another > example is the replacement of "conditional" with the if/else components > (currently available on t-deli), which also do a lot to keep > form-rewinds happy. That's less "blood and guts" you have to worry about. > That's not to say they haven't done a lot of neat things for the > "power > user" as well... adding multiple persistence strategies, for instance. > But, as for me, I feel like tapestry has made a lot of things possible > (and easily possible) that seemed next-to-impossible before, and made a > lot of easy stuff even easier. For me, the biggest "learning curve" was > not tapestry, itself, but changing my paradigm on webapps. When I > stopped trying to treat webapps like a text-processing problem, and > started treating them like /applications/, with objects, state, visual > components, etc., as though I was building a swing or swt app, a lot of > things just sort of... fell into place. > That's not to say there isn't room for improvement... there certainly > is. But I don't see myself switching to any other java framework > anytime soon. > > Robert > > Danie Honig wrote: > > I am in agreement wholeheartedly with what you stated. As tapestry > > matures we need to find ways to keep people out of the blood and guts of > > Tapestry if they don't need to. This is what commercial tool vendors do > > with high level frameworks such as .NET or even the case of SAP's > > WebDynPro, to offer an alternative example. I think its vital that the > > Tapestry community stay focused and committed to Tapestry in order to > > avoid the scenario that you just described. > > It is harder for an open source project such as tapestry to create all > > of the nice GUI RAD tools that other environments have. WebObjects had > > Builder, .NET has Visual Studio and the WebDynPro environment has a set > > of wizards tools that allow you to rapidly assemble an application and > > do a very good job of keeping you out of alot of the blood and guts of > > the application. As Tapestry matures we should see the same thing and > > not the reverse. We cannot expect the core tapestry team and project to > > do everything, but if we had good tools that help ease the complexity of > > building a simple application then we have the best of both worlds, and > > it would make Tapestry a much more compelling framework. I have heard > > good feedback on Suns Visual Studio for JSF, what is the most promising > > tool for Tapestry support, the myeclipse integration? What do folks > > feel is the ideal concept for a Tapestry 4.0 and beyond development > > tool? Spindle is great, but merely scratches the surface of what is > > possible.... > > > > > > > > Patrick Casey wrote: > > > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Danie Honig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 2:56 PM > >>> To: Tapestry users > >>> Subject: Re: Tapestry starting to look too steep > >>> > >>> Too early to criticize 4.0 and contrast it with .NET. Any new > >>> platform/paradigm requires a commitment to learn it. If your interested > >>> in solutions that require very little time to learn and are immediately > >>> productive but limit your ability to scale across a wide range of uses > >>> and offer substandard performance, I highly reccomend the microsoft > >>> approach...Historically this is what they are good at. > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> That's what I was trying to get at earlier I guess. There are some > >> tools which make the easy stuff easier and are ideal for relatively > >> simple > >> projects. From a reality check standpoint though, I think *most* projects > >> are simple. For everyone writing a 10,000 concurrent user e-business app > >> running atop a multiplexed server farm, there are probably 1,000 guys out > >> there writing simple little CRUD apps to people can update the corporate > >> phone list over the web. > >> > >> So it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. If tapestry > >> becomes more and more of a "high end" tool, I think it's going to have a > >> narrower and narrower user pool. At some point it may cross the threshold > >> where my projects usually sit and then I'll be in the unfortunate > >> position > >> of thinking "now why would I use that atomic bomb to kill a mouse?". > >> --- 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] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Communism is man's exploitation of man. Capitalism is just the opposite. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
