I think documentation will eventually address the OO issues (vs. scripting issues) that overwhelm new users.
BTW, the <property> tag is used to store meta data about pages, components, etc. I think that's what you need. I use it in Vlib to mark pages as "admin", "normal" or "logged-in" (i.e., declartively controlling what you can and can't see). The validate() method reads the property and may throw a PageRedirectException if the the user doesn't match the page. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://tapestry.sf.net > I didn't read my mail on this list for a minute so I missed the flame war... > Here's my two cents. > > Is Tapestry hard to learn? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > YES. But all frameworks are hard to learn. > > I spent a couple of weeks trying different frameworks. After reading > up on a bunch, I gave both Barracuda and Tapestry a try. Barracuda had > a longer learning curve, largely because it was not as easy to get up > and running out of the box. It took me a week to figure out how to do > what I needed to do with Tapestry, after that I could build my whole > application very quickly. > > We had a PHP guy on staff at the time who learned JSP/Struts while here > (JSP/Struts learning curve seemed to be on the order of months, not > easy to pick up but now there are book I understand). After more than > a month with Tapestry, he still didn't really get it. I take this as > evidence that it is hard to shift from a scripty type system to Tapestry, > but JSP/Struts is no piece of cake either. > > I think the solution is better documentation, and more importantly > simpler examples - a cookbook type approach. This may be impossible > given Tapestry's rate of development since new features are coming > out so quickly. There's not a lot of motivation to write good > ducmentation when you know it has a shelf-life of minus five > minutes (already obsolete by the time you write it). > > Is Tapestry cumbersome once you've grokked it? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Sort of. IMO, Tapestry makes hard things easy and easy > things hard. > > You get used to creating the .html, .page, and .java > files but I find I'm often typing stuff that the framework could > figure out for me. Something on the lines of anonymous components > would be nice (for me). For instance, I don't think you > should ever have to declare an Insert component - you should > be able to specify a property-path in the <span> tag and > just display the stuff. I agree with others that this opens > up a Pandora's box which may lead to putting scripting in > the HTML again. Maybe best to keep the lid on that - there's > already a lot of players in that field. > > The consensus on this list seems to be, Spindle is the solution > to the drudgery aspect of Tapestry. > I'm not too comfortable with that line of thinking. > Hiding a cumbersome development process behind great tools > is more the Microsoft approach and it's expensive to maintain. > If we're saying you need Spindle to make Tapestry usable, then > we're saying you need to use Eclipse too. Switching IDEs is > a biggish investment for a developer to make. I've given Eclipse a > serious try (3 months) and IMO it's just not that great an IDE. > Also, Geoff has a hard time keeping up with new Tapestry versions > and new Eclipse versions at the same time - he has a double coupling > there which is not fun. I've never been able to use Spindle so far > because either I needed features from a newer release of Tapestry > than Spindle supported, or there were bugs in Spindle or Eclipse > that prevented my use of it. Right now I can't even run Eclipse on > my linux box because the 2.0 stream depends on a new version of > the GTK and I need to install at least a dozen RPMS to solve that! > > OTOH, I've found developing for Tapestry to be not _that_ painful > without Spindle. IDEs are starting to come out with good XML > editors (the early access release of Intellij IDEA does, anyway). > A DTD-aware XML editor makes developing for Tapestry _much_ > easier. Maybe Tapestry should try to optimize for this time of > environment: java IDEs with good XML support. Then you don't > need plugins for Eclipse, IDEA, JBuilder, Forte, NetBeans, > (emacs!,) ... > > <aside> > Something that would be nice would be the capability to set > some static parameters on your Page classes in the .jwc files. > I basically have an EditProfilePage and a ListProfilesPage. These pages > need to be have a couple of things set on the - the EJB that > they are using, the type of profile that they are managing. > For each .jwc I need to create a new subclass of one of > these pages. All the subclass does is sets these two string > parameters. I'd like to do that in the .jwc and not need the > subclass. This would make for a more complex caching algorithm for > the pages. > </aside> > ------------------------------------------------------- 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
