So far, my experience has been to say "We're using Hibernate. It looks like this. Just play along for now." and that seems to work.
I'm not teaching Hibernate, just explaining enough to satisfy the demands of the lab. And I think there's great value in the fact that the applications are "real". In the past, I wasted a lot of energy with "fake" in-memory databases. It's nice to know that data sticks from execution to execution, and that any related problems with integrating the database are present from day 1. I think this builds confidence in the students that the work their doing is useful. On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 11:55 AM, Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Em Wed, 03 Sep 2008 15:31:05 -0300, ProAdmin Dariusz Dwornikowski > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: > >> Tapestry alone is no use if you do not have DB. > > As a instructor of Java, Hibernate, Spring and other frameworks, my > experience says that people learn way better when they're learning just one > thing, one concept, one feature at a time. Therefore, I think the book must > focus in Tapestry and abstract away the persistence layer. In a later > chapter, the book would show how to integrate Tapestry and Hibernate. In > another chapter, the book would show a complete example of Tapestry + > Hibernate + Spring. > > Thiago > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Creator Apache Tapestry and Apache HiveMind --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
