I don't understand u well, I think. But I'm not making FUD here if you read the mail list before. Or my English is so bad to understand u, if so, I apologize.
yes, security "without configuration" is impossible, by "without configuration" I mean I hope there's something looks like "Native", if that confused u, please blame my pool English at will. After sereval months using Tapestry 5, I like it very much. I hope I can work with tapestry only, at least no spring any more. But if I use acegi, spring jar will be included too, that makes me unconfortable because I think tapestry-ioc is good enough for my work and I don't need any other stuff spring provides. At least, if tapestry-acegi doesn't have a dependency on spring, that will be very GOOD! Just my own point of view. Thanks! 2008/3/19, Christian Edward Gruber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > I love it when someone invents new people to stage internet > conversations. > > note the "just only" and other little language features that this > troll uses in all his posts, regardless of the story. > > Even if I'm wrong in that supposition, this is open-source software. > If this was a real request, and not just another attempt to slander > Tapestry, then this person could make concrete recommendations, or > even better, contribute code. > > But mostly I love the premises. In a "real web framework" security is > "built in" and no configuration is even necessary. Bullcrap. Every > security system needs configuration, because no system can anticipate > all possible needs and use-cases and auto-configure for that magically > discovered state. And why should T5 re-build what someone already > wrote and tested. If acegi works, then why not integrate it? Ooh, > wait! I know, I know! HLS sucks because he didn't create his own O/R > Mapping layer! 'Cause why use Cayenne/Hibernate/JPA/TopLink when you > can, without compelling necessity, write your own, untested system > from scratch! > > Meh. > > > Christian. > > > On 18-Mar-08, at 23:51 , Joshua Jackson wrote: > > > I agree. I have requested this before for Tapestry to be a full web > > framework since right now it's just only a plain web framework. > > > > On 3/19/08, yuan gogo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Tapestry is good. > >> But I personally think it's lack of something that should be built- > >> in. > >> e.gsecurity! > >> > >> It's right that tapestry can work well with acegisecurity, but it's > >> not > >> native, is it? > >> And we programmer need time to write the configuration, > >> debug ........ it's > >> boring! > >> > >> Even there has been tapestry-acegi, but 2 projects can not be > >> always be > >> synchronous. What's more, tapestry-acegi can not do all that acegi > >> does. > >> > >> I was asp.net user once, even I think it's not so good, but it's > >> good for > >> "rapid" development, because some functions like security is built- > >> in. > >> > >> thanks. > >> > > > > > > -- > > Let's show the world what we've got. > > > > Blog: http://joshuajava.wordpress.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] > >
