On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 10:20:57 -0300, Muhammad Gelbana
wrote:
I agree this is an issue. Have you filled a JIRA for that? If not,
please> do it.
It's already done but I think I'm not labeling it correctly because it
hasn't had any activity since then.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP
>
> I agree this is an issue. Have you filled a JIRA for that? If not, please
> do it.
It's already done but I think I'm not labeling it correctly because it
hasn't had any activity since then.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAP5-1948
I think what you're really saying is not that Tapestry
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:00:13 -0300, Muhammad Gelbana
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 opini
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 07:00:13 -0300, Muhammad Gelbana
wrote:
I'm feeling guilty for starting such a controversy subject about a
framework I like !
This has been a nice discussion, so I think you have nothing to apologize.
;) I've said wrong things about Vaadin and got corrected, and I do l
serviceInterface = method.getReturnType();
return resources.getService(serviceInterface);
}
}
}
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Tapestry5-vs-Vaadin-tp5715273p5715381.html
Sent from the
I'm feeling guilty for starting such a controversy subject about a
framework I like ! 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. But *Thiago* already replied
to that usin
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 18:11:48 -0300, Lenny Primak
wrote:
Issue created:
http://code.google.com/p/flowlogix/issues/detail?id=30
Nice! Thanks! Subscribed to get notifications about this issue. :)
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---
Issue created:
http://code.google.com/p/flowlogix/issues/detail?id=30
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
> That's why I said 'basically'. ;) I claim no knowledge in Vaadin besides
> reading its website.
>
I also said 'basically' :)
I'm currently working on my first Vaadin project, so I am in no way an
expert. I do really like it though and I plan to also use it for an
administrative section of an ex
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:39:24 -0300, Lenny Primak
wrote:
I will actually put that on my list of things to do. The only problem I
have with this approach is that this will always be in catch-up mode ala
mono and .net
With the difference that the Tapestry public API grows slow . . .
--
Thi
I will actually put that on my list of things to do. The only problem I have
with this approach is that this will always be in catch-up mode ala mono and
.net
On Aug 13, 2012, at 2:25 PM, "Thiago H de Paula Figueiredo"
wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:03:24 -0300, Lenny Primak
> wrote:
>
>
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:07:39 -0300, Onno Scheffers wrote:
And don't forget that Vaadin is basically GWT plus some server-side
stuff.
That's like saying Tapestry is basically Javassist plus some server-side
stuff.
That's why I said 'basically'. ;) I claim no knowledge in Vaadin besides
re
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 16:03:24 -0300, Lenny Primak
wrote:
Also tapestry IOC is supporting and not a primary component of tapestry.
The web framework is the primary.
Yep, but Tapestry-IoC is amazing on its own too. :)
Having worked with tapestry for almost 2 years now I can honestly say
tha
> And don't forget that Vaadin is basically GWT plus some server-side stuff.
That's like saying Tapestry is basically Javassist plus some server-side
stuff. Vaadin is a very mature framework that has been in development for
many years and they built most of their client implementation and rich
cl
12, at 12:14 AM, lukaszkaleta wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The question is what you need more:
>>>>>> 1. RichClient like application on the web - then you can go with
>> vaadin,
>>>>>> since it has many build in components
>>>&
On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 10:54:26 -0300, Muhammad Gelbana
wrote:
I probably am. But I think tapestry's *major* contribution is into the
client part. I highly expect that this is wrong so please correct me if I
am. What difference does it make if tapestry is a multi-page framework
or a single-pag
>
> Wow, you've just said that Tapestry, which is a web framework, should drop
> the web framework (which is multipage), replace it with Vaadin/GWT (which
> are single page) and focus on the IoC part only. I'm sorry, but I think
> you're at least very confused about the above opinion
I probably a
On Sat, 11 Aug 2012 15:30:31 -0300, Muhammad Gelbana
wrote:
I've never used Vaadin but what I can say about it after I visited it's
website is that it's much more UI component rich when compared to
tapestry but it has no IoC support. Of course the lack of UI components
in t5 can be mitiga
On Sun, 12 Aug 2012 10:00:53 -0300, Muhammad Gelbana
wrote:
I'm mainly raising this discussion because I believe tapestry could make
use of the idea of using a mature UI framework (such as Vaadin or GWT)
instead of reinventing the wheel on that part and rather focus on what
it's REALLY grea
d in components
> >>>> 2. If you look for good perfomnace in faver of rich components then
> >>>> tapestry
> >>>> is better choice IMHO
> >>>>
> >>>> I used vaadin for administrative application, the performance was not
> so
e it has many build in components
>>>> 2. If you look for good perfomnace in faver of rich components then
>>>> tapestry
>>>> is better choice IMHO
>>>>
>>>> I used vaadin for administrative application, the performance was not so
>
gt;> I used vaadin for administrative application, the performance was not so
> >> important.
> >> Together with Google Guice as IoC it was nice combination.
> >>
> >> Tapestry has build
;> Together with Google Guice as IoC it was nice combination.
>>
>> Tapestry has build in own IoC, but integrating Spring is very easy too.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> View this message in
I think you are fixated on the number of components that are available in
vaadin too much. Vaadin and GWT in general have to have their own components
for everything because everything is built n JavaScript. Tapestry can get away
with using plain HTML for both things so it's not really a valid c
C, but integrating Spring is very easy too.
>
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Tapestry5-vs-Vaadin-tp5715273p5715274.html
> Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
performance was not so
important.
Together with Google Guice as IoC it was nice combination.
Tapestry has build in own IoC, but integrating Spring is very easy too.
--
View this message in context:
http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/Tapestry5-vs-Vaadin-tp5715273p5715274.html
Sent from the
So is there any Vaadin users already using tapestry5 too and could give me
a comparison based on his experience ?
I've never used Vaadin but what I can say about it after I visited it's
website is that it's much more UI component rich when compared to tapestry
but it has no IoC support. Of course
27 matches
Mail list logo
