The actions are still there, I think of them as "verbs". The difference is that the page/component structure of Tapestry gives us "nouns" as well. In that way, a very few verbs, combined with a wide range of nouns, gives us the "language" of Tapestry. Action-oriented frameworks are a language that is, effectively, just verbs. There's power there, but I think adding nouns is richer.
On 2/11/06, Jesse Kuhnert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just thought it was a funny story to share. Was at my friends company > yesterday poking around and after doing a bit of back and forth with the dev > group found myself being forced to describe some of the differences between > the action based frameworks and tapestry. > > The funny part was that I started off saying that some of the others were > action based, and did catch myself saying tapestry was component based...But > upon further thought decided that components really had nothing to do with > it as they just happened to be there, could be a page or service for all we > care. The only description that fit was calling it an "object oriented" > framework. Heh. > > j > > -- Howard M. Lewis Ship Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant Creator, Jakarta Tapestry Creator, Jakarta HiveMind Professional Tapestry training, mentoring, support and project work. http://howardlewisship.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
