<agnostic>Amen!</agnostic> Could someone just for crying out loud at the very least finish the api documentation with short examples on the main site. I would if I could but I can't so I won't.
Sorry to be obnoxious. Cheers, PS On 3/3/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Last month, I generated numerous e-mails on this list about dynamic > components. After a lot of hair pulling, because a lot of tooth pulling, > I finally figured out how to do the whole block/for/if/db solution. Yes, > this solution is pretty annoying; especially to a dev who is more > concerned about getting his product out the door than adhering to a design > dogma. > > However, I think the tragic flaw is not in the difficulty of the > block/for/if solution, but in its lack of documentation. It seems to be > well understood by a few Tapestry gurus, but a complex secret to us lay > folks. > > I believe that Tapestry would be best served not by rushing to fix bugs in > 4.0 or forge ahead to 4.1, but by providing exhaustive documentation--the > majority of which should be examples. We spend *so much* time working > through Tapestry's unique behavior because we have very few points of > reference from which to draw. Tapestry in Action is a decent start. Kent > Tong's book is a better start (IMHO). But there needs to be more > information. More examples. We've almost completely shelved the idea of > going to 4.0 for a long time (we're coding in 3.0.3) because we believe it > needs to stabilize AND because there are fewer examples available than > 3.0.3. Why fight that battle anew? > > I've come to appreciate Tapestry & have found a certain amount of > efficiency to it, but only after a steep learning curve and plenty of > frustration. Two examples: dynamic components and application catalogs. > Dynamic components is possible, but there's no clear set of examples or > documentation. Application catalogs are documented, but don't work. The > workaround is *brutal*, but possible....if you're willing to go it alone. > > > > > > > "Todd Orr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 03/03/2006 08:45 AM > Please respond to > "Tapestry users" <[email protected]> > > > To > "Tapestry users" <[email protected]> > cc > > Subject > Re: How to improve Tapestry > > > > > > > IMHO, the biggest feature that Tapestry is missing is solid dynamic > component generation. Time and time again you'll see devs asking the > same question in the forums, "how do I dynamically generate..." Each > time someone points out the block, the for, or the if constructs. Yet > these always seem way more difficult than they should be. Even with > these tools, content management systems are notoriously difficult to > build with Tapestry. Since Tapestry makes most things easier, this > seems to be ironic. I began using Tapestry because most of my > development time was cut in half, but the dynamic form development > tasks I had to perform were tripled in time! Now, I could be the > crappiest dev on earth, but I doubt it considering all the trouble > everyone else has with this task and Tapestry. Because Tapestry is > static, the very idea of dynamic components seems to leave a bad taste > in Howard's mouth (and the mouths of die-hard enthusiasts). Yet it > shouldn't, dynamic form generation is a very real, and fairly common > task. It should be a first class citizen in the land of Tapestry. > > Just to make sure the tone of this post isn't misunderstood: I love > Tapestry. Yet, everything can stand some measure of > improvement/rethinking. > > On 3/3/06, Mark Stang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Look at http://www.nextapp.com (a.k.a. echo2). > > > > regards, > > > > Mark > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Apache [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Fri 3/3/2006 5:04 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: How to improve Tapestry > > > > I think Tapestry already makes a big step forward > > but still there is a lot of things that could be made more dynamic and > free programmers of templates and component definitions. > > > > In my opinion everything could be in the database instead of > configuration files. > > > > In my idea world there should only be Java Classes > > and no XML/Html/Page files. > > > > I only want to tell the system to "genrate a form with the fields I tell > you" and to tell it which fields are editable - the rest should be done > automatically. Maybe you could tell how to order or align them, but I dont > want to write any html templates. > > > > > > -------------------- m2f -------------------- > > > > Sent from www.TapestryForums.com > > > > Read this topic online here: <<topic_link>> > > > > http://www.tapestryforums.com/viewtopic.php?p=14479#14479 > > > > -------------------- m2f -------------------- > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >
