http://www.lifl.fr/~dumoulin/tiles/doc/tutorialBody.html
and an advanced PDF (in doco of basicPortal which uses tiles and else where).
.V
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 20/10/2002 04:29:17 AM:
[snip]
As much as I hate it, JSP is the recognized standard for webapp development. Jakarta's development of a general purpose java templating technology, Velocity, is a valid alternative and is not even in direct conflict with JSP. But it is a simple, powerful alternative to JSP as well. Does tapestry give us another alternate template system that is only usable within the framework?
No, and that's where tapestry is different. Tapestry is a component framework, not a template engine. Think Swing components as an example.
Granted I could try to investigate Tapestry in depth to answer all my reservations, but I'm busy and on the surface the project seems to overlap several existing projects. My -1 is not a statement that Turbine (or Struts, Velocity, Avalon) should not have any competitors within Jakarta. I would prefer that Tapestry make the case that it offers something that these projects do not and I don't think the original proposal makes the case forcefully enough.
I've looked @ Tapestry in quite a bit of detail, and it does offer something different to Struts and Turbine, in that it focusses squarely on components and reuse.
There is a dearth of reusable components for Struts, simply because the JSP model doesn't lend itself to components very well, hence JSPTL and JSFaces.
Turbine has good component support for non-GUI components, but the template engine again doesn't lend itself to component embedding and reuse.
My 2c Aus....
--
dIon Gillard, Multitask Consulting
Work: http://www.multitask.com.au
Developers: http://adslgateway.multitask.com.au/developers
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:general-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:general-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
