The biggest time that you would want to use Tapestry over Turbine is when you need to deal with seperate Graphics / Web Design and Programming Departments. When our company looked at Tapestry, Struts, Turbine, etc. We felt that the intermingling of JSP, HTML, Java, and Scripts would make it hard to deal with development in this kind of environment. When you put non-HTML code into a HTML file, or non-Java into a Java file, you introduce the potential of someone who does not understand one or the other, damaging the work of one who does. In Tapestry, HTML is HTML and Java is Java. Our graphics designers can create a complete website sans functionality or dynamic content, we can take the result, add dynamic content, and still give it back to them to completely redesign with minimal work on our part to get the new look working (usually it is simply verifying that all the SPAN tags are correct).
Tapestry's main hurdle to development, most likely like Turbine et al, is the change in mind set required to deal with MVC. But it seemed easier to me to learn Tapestry than it was to deal with Turbine, Struts, etc. (Mainly because Tapestry had a RAD based design tool and MUCH less configuration files). -----Original Message----- From: Alex McLintock [mailto:alex@;OWAL.co.uk] Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 9:42 AM To: Turbine Users List Subject: Re: Tapestry I disagree. It is *not* adequately described. I have read all the Tapestry emails on that mailing list. People say it has a component model for building up websites, components are described in files, components can have actions, but most of the technical description talks about how it is different to struts. What I want to know from Turbine people is when might you want to use Tapestry instead of Turbine, and why. Alex At 23:05 21/10/02, you wrote: >On that different mailinglist it is pretty well described (also by >Turbine people iirc). the list [EMAIL PROTECTED] >and the archives can be found on nagoya.apache.org > >Mvgr, >Martin > >On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 21:25, Alex McLintock wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > On a different Apache mailing list there is some discussion about whether > > or not Tapestry ( http://tapestry.sourceforge.net/ ) should be allowed > into > > Apache. > > Putting that argument aside... Tapestry has been described as another > > alternative to JSP, and potentially nearer to Turbine than to Struts. > > > > Has any experienced Turbine developers looked at Tapestry? How does it > compare? > > > > Thanks > > > > Alex > > > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, > e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > > For additional commands, e-mail: > <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> > > > > > > > >-- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> >For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> Openweb Analysts Ltd, London. Software For Complex Websites http://www.OWAL.co.uk/ Open Source Software Companies please register here http://www.OWAL.co.uk/oss_support/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-user-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
