On Dec 20, 2007 8:49 PM, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah... JSF is a mess. So is the underlying JSP. Tapestry can't keep > compatibility with itself for more than a year in a row, and hence > can't be used for enterprise applications that have a much longer > maintenance lifespan. And now with web development going all > JavaScript, the talent pool for potential open source WO challengers > is quickly draining. So WO is doing quite well by comparison and > might just keep claiming the best HTML component framework position > for years to come. Go figure :-)
Hmm, is that so much different than WO? I'm am currently unable to update from 5.3 to 5.4 because it will require changes. True: WO does not update every year, but is that good? With the current state of affairs, I'm spending time working around ancient bugs and implementing features i might have gotten for 'free' in frameworks with more frequent releases. This is not a defence for JSF (I don't see my self ever using that), but I am quite concerned of the future of WO, and I was once a great fan. Cheers Tonny > > Andrus > > > On Dec 20, 2007, at 8:29 PM, Mike Schrag wrote: > > > http://www.jsftutorials.net/components/pic/relationship.jpg > > I think this sums up JSF quite nicely :) > > > > ms > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/mezz.dk%40gmail.com > > This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list ([email protected]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
