It has already been said. 1000's is nothing in terms of performance,
but less than 10% of all apps require that,
we are doubletalking at this point. Deploy .NET with a site like I did
with 7,000,0000 page views a day and then
report back. I've done that with J2EE and Tapestry does not introduce
any fundamental problems that
we did not already have in that project. In fact Tapestry exemplifies
things that make it better than platform
we used for that site, which was a portal for the second largest banking
company at the time, and we deployed
in 86 countries and 7 languages.....When .NET does that as easily as
J2EE then I've lost my relevance with
what I replied earlier.....I am really enthusiastic about the end of
your post though, we should get a team
to build the same components as .NET in Tapestry and take them one step
further. I would pitch in on this effort,
if your willing to lead a subteam, I'll commit 4-5 hours a week on it...
kranga wrote:
Uh - perhaps you've never written any app with .NET. I've written extremely
interactive applications with .NET that are used by 1000s of users and scale
very well. There is no comparison of Tapestry and .NET - just look at the
component market for .NET - you can buy amazingly sophisticated components
for a very reasonable price (runtime royalty free). That said, I'd like to
see similar components available for Tapestry (and I'm doing my part
building some).
----- Original Message -----
From: "Danie Honig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 5:56 PM
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.
Karthik Abram wrote:
The best way to learn Tapestry is to write a component on your own. I do
agree that .NET is way simpler - with 4.0 it "feels" like Tapestry is
becoming more esoteric (deliberately using 'esoteric' and not
'complicated').
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Casey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 4:26 PM
To: 'Tapestry users'; 'Darío Vasconcelos'
Subject: RE: Tapestry starting to look too steep
I have to agree with you that Tapestry has a steep learning curve.
That's why this list receives so many messages on a daily basis... I
have found with joy that this is a community that won't let their new
passengers down easily, even if some of us ask the same questions over
and over... :-)
I'm with you on this point and I'm wondering if part of that may be
due to the way Tapestry is perceived in the broader community. I consider
myself a pretty damn experienced servlet developer, and Tapestry
definitely
wasn't easy to get ahold of. Frankly, without the ability to slog through
(and understand) a lot of Howard's source I don't know if I'd have been
able
to pick up how a lot of things worked just from the doc and Tapestry in
Action.
For a real servlet newbie, Tapestry, I think, is really frustrating
because it's advertised as "simple" when, in fact, it really isn't.
Tapestry
is *powerful*, but it's not simple. .NET is way simpler; hell, from a
learning perspective, raw servlets are simpler than tapestry because
there
are no black boxes to worry about. Structured strings come in, they get
parsed, and string go back out. What could be simpler?
So I think it's a case where Tapestry is actually a really good tool
to allow advanced java web developers to function more efficiently. A lot
of
people come into it though with the perception that, since its component
based, it's a good tool for *beginning* developers to learn servlets
with,
and I have to say that's a mistake.
IMHO if you don't know servlets to start with and don't have some
experience doing web development, trying to learn those skills along with
Tapestry is asking for trouble. I see occasional folks on these lists
asking
really basic questions, questions that aren't necessarily specific to
tapestry, and I just wince internally because I can't help thinking:
you're
in for a tough row mate :(.
--- 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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
