There are a few features in Tapestry that are confusing because all we have is the base implementation, SimpleEngine.
Then Engine / Visit split exists primarily so that applications can run stateless. Until you store server-side state or trigger the creation of the Visit, no HttpSession is created. At the very least, this usually means your Home page pops up faster, since (especially in a clustering environment) creating the HttpSession can be expensive. Eventually, when there aren't higher priority things to do, I (or someone) will create smarter implementations of Engine that allow server-side state to be stored as HTTP Cookies (in which case, no HttpSession ever), or in a database, or allowing a page-by-page selection of strategies. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Craig Miskell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Magic Hat" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "Tapestry Developer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 8:40 PM Subject: Re: WebObjects -> Tapestry (was Re: [Tapestry-developer] Re: instances vs class/id vs type) > Yep, doing an experimental project of exactly that right now. There's a > few conceptual hurdles, but it's not terribly difficult. > The HTML ports really easy (replace <WEBOBJECT NAME=Blah> with > <picktagname jwcid="Blah">), and the wod isn't too bad - not really line > for line, but the concepts are the same, and a lot of the binding names > are identical. > > I'm seriously contemplating writing a "Tapestry for the WebObjects > developer" introduction kind of things, for our internal use (if we go > with Tapestry). If others would be interested, I could see about getting > it released to the world+dog. Of course, somebody would have to explain > to me the reason for Engine and Visit being separated (as compared to > Session in WO) :-) > > Craig > > On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Magic Hat wrote: > > > > > On Tuesday, Oct 8, 2002, at 23:17 Europe/Zurich, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > WebObjects is very very similar to Tapestry. > > > > Talking of which, I have a WebObjects application that I would like to > > port to Tapestry for different reasons. Does anybody have any > > experience in such an endeavor? > > > > Thanks. > > > > PA. > > > > P.S. > > > > The application itself is open source. If you are so inclined you can > > find a description here: > > > > http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/10/07/udell.html > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > > Welcome to geek heaven. > > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > > _______________________________________________ > > Tapestry-developer mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer > > > > Craig Miskell > Programmer, Black Albatross, Otago University, New Zealand > -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- > Version: 3.1 > GCS d- s+:- a-->? C++++(++)$ ULXH+++$>++++ P+>++++ L++$>++++$ E--- W+++$ > N+ K? w--- !O M-- V? PS--- PE Y t++ 5 X+++ R-- tv+ b+>+++ DI++++ D+ G+ e++ > h--- r+++ y+++ > ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek > Welcome to geek heaven. > http://thinkgeek.com/sf > _______________________________________________ > Tapestry-developer mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer > ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Tapestry-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tapestry-developer
