Agree 100%. I guess I just consider the marketing aspects to be part of the free intellectual market :-)
On 12/20/06, Marilen Corciovei <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel I think you are right but only partially. We must never neglect the marketing aspects. A "thing" either free or comercial is promoting itself only less than 50% by it's quality because only a very little number of decisions are taken by quality in todays world. Aspects like mouth to mouth, slashdot articles, and many others are also essentials. Ways must be found to promote Tapestry, this way it will receive the attention deserved and this will allow and motivate everyone in enhancing the framework. Len www.len.ro On Wed, 2006-12-20 at 10:15 -0500, D&J Gredler wrote: > Emmanuel - > > I tend to view this as a free intellectual market at work. There were > inadequacies in Tapestry and strengths in Wicket that drove this one user to > choose Wicket over Tapestry (and the other frameworks). If enough people > agree with him, either Tapestry addresses these issues and becomes a better > framework, or users migrate to Wicket (or some other framework du jour). > Either way, we developers end up with a better framework. Given the amount > of work that has already been invested in Tapestry and the community that > has been built around it, I think the first option is much more likely, but > then I'm no oracle :-) > > Daniel > > > On 12/20/06, Emmanuel Sowah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > I came across this article > > http://www.infoq.com/news/2006/12/wicket-vs-springmvc-and-jsf and thought > > probably someone here could comment. Is Tapestry really losing the battle > > against Wicket? > > > > Emmanuel > > > >
