I've never worked with WO, so I can't really offer an insight into
the relative merits of the two. One thing I will note though is that the
very first "real" work I did with my tapestry app was to add a persistence
layer so I wouldn't have to deal with the rewind cycle.
Intellectually, I understand where Howard is coming from (server
side state *is* expensive), but from a my personal standpoint it's a price
I'm more than willing to bear for code and debugging simplicity. The rewind
process is just inherently "frail". You can take steps to minimize the
frailness, use some of Mind Bridges components, use a data squeezer, etc.
IMHO though, those sorts of robust approaches should be the default.
If a user is really performance limited, they can use the rewind
approach and save some memory on the back end. For the vast majority of
users though, a more memory intensive but developmentally robust approach is
what they're looking for. It's my biggest concern with Tapstry and the
reason that last night at a 4th of July BBQ I was able to recommend
Hibernate whole-heartedly, but could only suggest he "take a look at"
Tapesry.
--- Pat
-----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Hopson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 11:39 AM
> To: Tapestry users
> Subject: Re: Rewinding - why such a design?
>
> All the responses don't really address the questions raised by Howards
> comments. I would be interested in hearing opinion from the Tapestry
> crowd as to why Tapestry addresses these issues better than WO, as an
> education to me and many others.
>
> On 05/07/05, Geoff Hopson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > As a WO developer of many years and a recent Tapestry convert, I would
> > appreciate it if you would itemise :
> > - why WO doesn't work so well in a J2EE environment
> > - why WO consumes more memory
> > - what are the scalability problems?
> >
> > If you could contrast that with how Tapestry does it better, that
> > might help a few more folks from the WO world appreciate Tapestry and
> > understand why certain decisions have been made the way they have.
> >
> > Best wishes
> > Geoff
> >
> >
> > On 05/07/05, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > WO takes a very different approach to maintaiing state on the server,
> > > one that doesn't work so well in a J2EE env. and consumes much memory,
> > > leading to scalability problems.
> > >
> > > I prefer Tapestry's approach. Further, MB's new If and For components
> > > will make the whole process much more transparent.
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/5/05, Adam Czysciak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > At the beginning - hello everyone, I'm new here. And - starting
> with
> > > > question. Probably it was already here many times, so please point
> me
> > > > the URL to the archivized message so we don't spam the group:)
> > > >
> > > > My question is directed rather to Howard himself - why do we need
> > > > rewinding in Tapestry? Well, I've read this part of "Tapestry in
> > > > Action", so it's not "please explain me what it is". Just wondering
> - why?
> > > >
> > > > This causes so many Stale Exceptions. As for me, it conflicts
> with
> > > > the idea of components design. A simple example - three components,
> one
> > > > for displaying item, second for adding subitems, third for
> displaying
> > > > subitems. Everything in one form, put one by one. What happens if I
> add
> > > > new subitem? You know the answer. Well, I can easily solve it as
> > > > everyone suggests everywhere, by performing actions in form submit,
> > > > after it's all rewinded... But the huge problems appears if a Page
> has
> > > > the form, and subcomponents are form elements (well, maybe it's such
> a
> > > > special case?) and due to our components-design we want to split the
> > > > actions.
> > > >
> > > > What is the most unclear to me - ... Howard mentions he was
> basing on
> > > > WebObjects. I'm 2 years now using WebObjects, and there things
> simply
> > > > work! Of course I don't blame Howard - he did a great job with
> Tapestry!
> > > > But my question is - what caused the problems he couldn't jump over
> with
> > > > such a basic fields? This Stale exceptions, using special
> Conditionals
> > > > in Forms? I don't get it (yet)...
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Greets!
> > > > Adam Czysciak
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sun Certified Programmer for the Java 2 Platform, SE 5.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 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]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
