On Wednesday 09 October 2002 19:53, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Seems like this thread has gone beyond "lively debate". >
[...] > So, of course, they are going to take offence when > someone comes in and calls them obstinate idiots. No... not really, people call me a obstinate idiot all the time :-) [...] > If you have valid points to make, make them. Give > examples. You're the Phd, you should know how to defend > yourself verbally. Just don't expect your every whim to > be implemented. Your idea of moving some of the specification to the HTML template seems ok, just as long as it still looks like HTML. I think it works best to components that emulate HTML elements, eg: <input type="text" name="foobar" jwcid=":TextField:foobar_expression"> > And has Marc struck a nerve? I think Marc overestimated his abilities and expected instant gratification from Tapestry. When I started to learn Tapestry I had similar reactions, the complex orquestration of elements one must manage to make even a simple page was at the time very infuriating, but Tapestry looked so good that I just bite the bullet, and silenced my bruised ego. > Is Tapestry just too > difficult for newbies? And if so, will better docs > help, or do we need to shift directions? Like I said in a previous email I come from a ASP/VB background - I had the Java handicap - and for me it was difficult, but it was manageable. Better docs are always welcome. I don't think Tapestry needs a shift in directions, at least not a direction that will make a mess of the HTML templates. Best regards, Luis Neves ------------------------------------------------------- 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
