On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Kalle Korhonen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 6:18 AM, Alex Kotchnev <[email protected]> wrote:
>> One area that I miss from the Grails world (that Play also seems to adopt)
>> is moving the "convention-over-configuration" from deep down in the code
>
> Thanks Alex for the insight regarding Grails.
>
>> Testing T5 apps is still a sore spot. Sure, you can use EasyMock to mock out
>> a bunch of stuff and unit test components but you end up having to learn
>> about much more than you signed up for - having to mock out some T5 services
>> is not fun at all. Having better and more explicit support for various unit
>
> I've marketed Tynamo's approach on integration testing before, but
> once again, see
> http://docs.codehaus.org/display/TYNAMO/2010/07/30/Full+web+integration+testing+in+a+single+JVM
> for full functional testing in a single JVM. Mocking approaches only
> go so far and Selenium is much too slow and error prone to my taste
> for general functional testing.
>
>> liquibase or yaml), standard security package etc, etc. Sure, I could
>
> I'm not sure a standard security package is a good idea. If Tapestry
> provided its own, people would still be asking for integration with
> Shiro or Acegi or their favorite security package X. At the same, it's
> not necessarily a good marketing strategy that Tapestry would embrace
> a particular security framework (and you have to appreciate what
> exists in these frameworks, I wouldn't want to duplicate all that
> effort). It's much simpler for Tapestry to support the use of one of
> these security packages, such as Tynamo's tapestry-security, as an
> officially approved third-party security integration, *without*
> bringing it as part of the core. Then again, we do have official
> Hibernate integration so why not a particular security library as
> well? Shiro is an Apache project and me being a committer in all of
> the three projects, it doesn't require a huge stretch of imagination
> that tapestry-security would become an official Tapestry module. But
> I'll say this: Shiro may be well documented and tapestry-security well
> integration tested, but Tapestry's code sets the bar way, way higher
> still.
>
>> I appreciate Howard's drive to make the underpinnings of the framework yet
>> better , cleaner, and more powerful (e.g. the plastic work) ; however, at
>> least from the perspective of a "regular" user they don't have much
>> immediate value.  It seems to me that the framework periphery (as discussed
> ...
>> authors have no choice but do depend on, resulting into upgrade issues (e.g.
>> many people depend on third party modules like tynamo , testify
>> or chenillekit ). Maybe a little slowdown in core framework advances would
>> be nice for module authors as well.
>
> As the founder of Tynamo, I say you don't have to worry about
> compatibility issues with Tynamo's offerings. There's always some work
> to do to update the libs if the internals change, but T5's adaptable
> api and external/internal interfaces have well proven its merits in my
> eyes - the effort has been minimal so far and I've been impressed with
> Tapestry's (internal) backwards compatibility. I think Josh put it
> well, you have to scratch the itch you have, and Howard has a major
> one to continue improving the internals. It's up to the rest of of us
> to add the layering on top.
>

And that's always been my desire, to build and infrastructure that can
be everything to everyone, with room for lots of people to work on
what specifically interests them.


> Kalle
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>



-- 
Howard M. Lewis Ship

Creator of Apache Tapestry

The source for Tapestry training, mentoring and support. Contact me to
learn how I can get you up and productive in Tapestry fast!

(971) 678-5210
http://howardlewisship.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to