Notes from that meeting should be available soon and I
think they might be very valuable in general because in the beginning we have
created a matrix where on the left side we have listed âneedsâ and as
people talked about frameworks appropriate notes were put into cells.
The âneedsâ list consisted from many items:
marked share
adoption trend
skill marketability
debuggability
easiness of develop-deploy-view cycle
testability
integration with ajax
separation of code and presentation
collaboration between designers and developers
internationalization
maintainability
runtime monitoring
learning curve
to name a few
Of course all the estimates were subjective but the format is very useful
because it explicitly lists all the needs and concerns and allows comparing
frameworks. I wish we could create a resource where such matrix would be the
entry point into larger collection, where every cell will be a link to a
page(s) where framework developers and users would tell exactly how this
particular tool addresses the given concern.
Lets look how i18n matrix might look like:
Tiles:
provide support: allow overriding entire 'tiles' based on locale, by providing
alternative configuration files named after locales, for example
tiles.ru_RU.xml for Russian
Tapestry:
provide support: allow automatic selection of any locale specific resources:
images, property files, page and component templates. ( logo.ru_RU.jpg,
pahe.ru_RU.html )
Struts:
provide support: fragmented - partially i18n is supported by using resource
bundles and resource bundle aware taglibs, partially supported by complementary
rendering technologies like Tiles or SiteMesh.
DWR:
no explicit support for i18n
etc...
-------------
As for 'fantastic' JSF support.... well, keeping in mind that all the big
vendors are trying to push JSF technology on us, I would say that JSF is in
pretty bad shape â low adoption, books are unsubstantial, still no useable
WISYWIG tools (as in Delphi or VB), slow like hell, etc. JSF really looks like
reenactment of EntityBean story.
>>Not to mention changes from 3.0 -> 4.0 and proposed changes
>>in 4.1 and 5.0 all makes for a high maintenance, low reuse, and generally
>>dirty migration path (imho).
Those are valid concerns but there is nothing that would suggest that same
concerns are not valid for JSF. EntityBeans 1 â> 2 â> 3 Anybody?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Now I really wish I had been at SeaJUG, but a flat
tire got in my way.
In any case, I think Tapestry is a fantastic concept, but in my experience
the sheer lack of support (online docs, forum support, books, training)
makes it a poor sell to those making decisions. Not to mention changes
from 3.0 -> 4.0 and proposed changes in 4.1 and 5.0 all makes for a high
maintenance, low reuse, and generally dirty migration path (imho).
I was really curious to hear the JSF war stories. As the documentation
(books/examples), training, and support of JSF is fantastic compared to
Tapestry.
Konstantin Ignatyev
03/22/2006 10:50 AM
Please respond to
"Tapestry users"
To
TapestryUsers
cc
Subject
promoting Tapestry
Just want to share:
last night here at Seattle Java User group we had a round table
discussion where people were presenting WEB UI frameworks they use and
tried to highlight things they love about them. There were many:
Millstone, Barracuda, echo2, JSF, Struts, Tapestry, Tiles/Sitemesh, DWR,
RubyOnRails
Every presenter had about 6-8 minutes for a âsales pitchâ and at the end
people answered the question:
If you were a king and decide what framework to use for next project,
which framework will you use? (People voted once only for just one
framework)
Tapestry â 15;
Struts â 5;
JSF â 3;
The rest got zero or 1 votes;
I could attribute Tapestry's warm reception to my presenter skills :)
but in reality it is the Howard's hard work and Tapestry community make
the framework so appealing to developers.
I ask everybody to speak about Tapestry more frequently on occasions and
this way we all will benefit from wider Tapestry adoption.
Konstantin Ignatyev
PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil,
add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population
by 263,000
Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
