Actually, Wicket was at the top of our list of potential frameworks for this new project, however the app we're building will get some fairly high traffic and we were concerned that there we no performance or load testing numbers available for Wicket. We would have had to implement a significant proof-of-concept app in Wicket and then perform testing on it to see if it would meet our needs. That's still something we're considering, but this is why we're looking at Tapestry first. We're it not for these "unknowns" surrounding Wicket, then we would have already started down that road. The other developers on the team we very impressed with our initial evaluation of it.
I've been following Tapesty from the outside (via various blogs and an occasional peek at this newsgroup) for about a year, but this is my first time actually implementing anything in it and it's not quite was I was expecting. Matt Welch On 11/14/05, Robert Zeigler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you're looking for a code-intensive framework, you might try wicket > (http://wicket.sourceforge.net) or click (http://click.sourceforge.net). > I haven't used either, personally, but have heard good things about > both. > > Robert > > On Mon, 2005-11-14 at 22:13 -0600, Matt Welch wrote: > > I'm just getting into Tapestry and while I like many of the concepts, > > I'm finding it to be a little complex. Here's an example. It's my > > understanding that specifying components for you pages via annotation > > is new to Tapestry 4.0. I'm a fan of annotations however, in this case > > they seem a little clumsy. Here's an example from my adaptation of the > > tutorial I'm following (Kent Tong's Enjoying Web Development with > > Tapestry): > > > > > > @Component( > > id="productsLoop", > > type="For", > > bindings={ > > "source=products", > > "value=currentProduct", > > "element=literal:tr" > > } > > ) > > public abstract IComponent getProductsFor(); > > > > > > That's how I declared a For component for the eStore tutorial. I guess > > that's really not so bad and my IDE keep the indentation clean so that > > it's not too hard to follow, but to be honest, what I was kind of > > expecting was something a little more code intensive rather than XML > > or annotation intensive. For instance, if the BasePage or AbstractPage > > had a method like addPageComponent() then in some kind of > > intialization method or perhaps the contstructor I might do something > > like: > > > > > > { > > For productsLoop = new For(); > > products.setId("productsLoop"); > > productsLoop.setSource(getProducts()); > > productsLoop.setValue(getCurrentProduct()); > > productsLoop.setElement("tr"); > > addPageComponent(productsLoop); > > } > > > > > > I'm guessing that this alternate way of doing things doesn't exist > > since I haven't seen any tutorials or examples that show anything like > > that. Has anyone ever tried to do something like that or would there > > be drastic changes to core framework needed? > > > > Again, I'm pretty new to Tapestry so it may be that I'll get used to > > such heavy annotations/XML in time, so take this for what it is: a > > newb's first impressions. > > > > Matt Welch > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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]
