Great post Onno! +1 Like Jan, I also find Rob pretty amusing. You never know, maybe one day his messages about the version incompatibilities will help someone who has somehow managed to miss the statements on the Tapestry site, however unlikely that might be.
> > Take for example Kent Tong, the former Tapestry commiter. He has now > even > > written a book on > > Wicket. > > ..and he has written yet another one on JSF after that. So clearly he > must > not like Wicket very much :o) > > Seriously though: I have used Tapestry 3 on several projects. I've used > Tapestry 4 on several projects and I'm currently learning my way around > Tapestry 5. Inbetween I've also done a couple of projects using Wicket. > > I think Wicket is much easier to learn, even than Tapestry 5. Howard > often > claims everything is easy in T5 and for him that's probably true. Not > only > is Howard very intelligent and talented, but he also knows everything > there > is to know about Tapestry. > But T5 uses naming-conventions and annotations for methods, properties > and > parameters instead of simply extending a base-class. It also injects > all > kinds of stuff into the components using annotations and if you want to > use > a service, you'll have to know how to get to it. > All of this means your IDE won't help you much when you get started and > you > have have to learn an awful lot (annotations, naming conventions, > services > and a little about the inner workings of Tapestry) before you can > actually > really build something other than an HelloWorld application. I still > find > myself going back to the documentation all the time. > Once you have learned all those things though, Tapestry is extremely > productive and powerful. > > And even though I claimed Wicket is much easier to learn, once I > started > creating more complex web-applications with it, I've also lost many > days > trying to figure out how I could make Wicket components do the things I > wanted them to do and often I found that I was writing a lot of code > for > simple things (especially a lot of simple models, where Tapestry only > expected me to write a getter on the page). > > You repeatedly stated that you don't like Tapestry. Mostly because of > the > lack of backward compatibility. I understand that and I have old > projects in > T3 and T4 as well and migrating them over to T5 would take months or > even > years. Supporting them requires knowledge of old versions of Tapestry. > This > is indeed a problem. But I also have customers that still have old > applications written with plain servlets. Applications written with > JSP's > (and scriptlets) and applications written with Struts. I don't like > those > technologies but it's basically the same thing: Time moves on and so > does > technology. Old stuff that works doesn't get migrated simply because I > happen to prefer the latest and greatest tools. > > I now prefer Wicket over T3 and T4, but I am starting to prefer T5 over > Wicket again. Every framework has its pros and cons and fits a > different > audience and target. I have advised different customers to use Tapestry > in > one situation and Wicket in another (different projects, different > requirements). They are all still happy with those choices. Each > framework > has its place and is just another tool in your toolbox. > > You can choose to either use Tapestry or to use something else. Just be > glad > that a group of people is willing to share their work with the rest of > world. Frameworks like Click or Wicket probably wouldn't have existed > if it > wasn't for Tapestry. And Tapestry 5 probably would have looked > different if > Wicket and Rails hadn't been around. > All frameworks are important because they push innovation, making each > other > a little better over time. > > > regards, > > Onno --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
