On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:00:13 -0300, Muhammad Gelbana <m.gelb...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I was merely making a suggestion that tapestry would
adopt a mature UI framework for it's client part and focus on it's most
mature part so far which is the server side's.
Another argument against that: Tapestry, in my humble opinion, does have a
mature UI framework. It's incredibly flexible, it's easy to use, it's very
easy and quick to create new components, there's live class reloading of
them, so your productivity is higher, it can handle both client-side and
server-side. It isn't a small part of Tapestry. It's a very large part of
it. The JavaScript part is having a large improvement being written now so
it's easier to use and create your own components that use JavaScript.
Replacing the Tapestry UI framework by another Java framework would be a
huge waste of the time and effort put on it. In addition, there would a
couple of upsides, but a lot of downsides.
I think what you're really saying is not that Tapestry UI framework is
immature, but that it doesn't have the same number of components
out-of-the-box (not including the easily-added third-party modules) as
Vaadin. Yes, this is a good argument for Vaadin against Tapestry, but it's
just one.
To be clear, I'm not against an integration of Vaadin with Tapestry. I'd
love to see that implemented as a module. It would make it very easy to
use both together and have the best of two worlds.
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
