Ryan Holmes <ryan <at> hyperstep.com> writes: > It seems to utterly contradict the primary goals of > Tapestry 5 which, as I understand them, are to bring some of the > advantages of *dynamic languages* to a Java web framework
I found that out later. Is it written somewhere as the design goal of T5? If so, I'm sorry that I've missed that. This would have saved us a lot of time. > It would be a serious mistake to build two fundamentally different > philosophies into Tapestry 5 and expect users to perceive the > schizophrenic result as "flexible." They won't -- they'll only find > it confusing and will move on to other, more coherent frameworks. Agree. > I also have to note that, based on the total lack of support from > users or developers for the concept of "type-safe Tapestry", I'm > afraid Kent is the only one who doesn't see that he is pulling in a > different and ultimately counterproductive direction. Interesting. You mean the following have never existed? http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/45117/focus=45143 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.java.tapestry.user/45117/focus=45143 http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=44119#226878 http://tapestryjava.blogspot.com/2005/07/vs-makes-me.html In addition, I suppose you have seen people keep asking for IDE support for Tapestry. My proposal is not only about compile time checking, but also first class IDE support. But anyway, please don't waste any more time on this issue as it is now clear that Tapestry 5 is going to be a Ruby web framework for Java programmers. As such I fully agree that compile time checking and first class IDE support are conflicting goals. -- Kent Tong Author of a book for learning Tapestry (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
