If you can wait for AJAX functionality (late 2007?) , I would say go with Tapestry 5. If you need AJAX immediately, the latest Tapestry 4 is best. Tapestry 5 is the "next generation" Tapestry, and the T4 code is not directly compatible. That said, your T4 code isn't completely useless either. T5 is still very component based. I've only worked with Tapestry 4 and 5, and I would say that Tapestry 5 is easier to learn, although for many people it's been a challenge to get started initially (mostly due to quickstart directions that weren't updated, regarding Maven). Also some T5 quickstarts included a few lines of code that needed to be changed or removed in order for the code to work. Don't be discouraged if it doesn't all come together at once -- people who have it running seem to love it, even though it is not fully completed.
Maven's a great tool, and after you learn the basics I think newcomers will like it. There is a free ebook on the web that will teach you more that you'll need to know about Maven. In Tapestry 5, almost everything you'll need to write is a non abstract class. The directory structure of your web application is much better defined, IMHO. One of the best things is that there are no more xml files for your pages. For me it made things much simpler. I'm not a Tapestry expert by any means, and I sometimes find myself wanting to do things the hard way. Luckily there are a lot of nice people on this list who have politely corrected me, and shown me the better way. In addition there is a wiki page for T5 that is actively updated. I'm only a junior developer, so I try to add simple things that would help out people like myself. But others add more advanced how-to's. You might want to take a look, since it also links to sample code included in Tapestry. From there you can get a feel of how it works. http://wiki.apache.org/tapestry/Tapestry5HowTos On 8/20/07, Angelo Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > Thanks for the reply, I'm learning Tapestry 4, from those samples I saw, > it's ok to use either abtract or not as page class, so which one is better? > maybe non abstract class to be compatible with Tapestry 5? I'm just > evaluating frameworks for a coming project, is it advisable to use Tapestry > 5 instead of 4? Thanks. > > A.C. > > > Daniel Jue wrote: > > > > Hi Tapestry 4 relied more on abstract classes. In Tapestry 5, you are > > usually writing concrete classes -- tapestry does it's magic on all > > the classes under /pages. You can still have an abstract class to > > base your pages on, but that class should probably go in /base instead > > of /pages, since it wont have a page template of it's own. > > > > I believe this is covered on the Tapestry 5 main website. > > > > > > On 8/20/07, Angelo Chen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/abstract-or-no-tf4298749.html#a12246721 > Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.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]
