Hi, My reply is OOT :). But, I'm just curious, were you evaluating Vaadin for "GWT like" ? What is your opinion about Vaadin?
I love using Tapestry for page based web application and I love using Vaadin when building full Ajax web-application. On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 6:27 AM, Lenny Primak <lpri...@hope.nyc.ny.us>wrote: > If anyone finds it useful, or a useful place to put it > ----------- > So here is a quick summary of what I found out in my lengthy research: > It went down to 5 candidates, JSF, GWT, RIFE, Tapestry & Grails. > I had a couple of must-have criteria: > - A web designer has to be able to read/write the app via DreamWeaver or > other non-programmer tool > - Easy to use, and integrates with the current web projects in use. > > Basically, there are three categories: > - JSP-like (JSF, Wicket, Tapestry) > - Rails-like (RIFE, Grails) > - GWT-like (GWT) > > Tapestry is overall simpler to use than both JSF and Wicket, > while having similar feature set. > Also, Tapestry doesn't have the duplication of effort problem that Wicket > has. > Tapestry's files are readable/writable by DreamWeaver and keep their 'form' > in it the best. > > Rails-like frameworks fail the designer test, since most pages are > auto-generated. > Also, they are incompatible with current way of doing things in the web > world, > and absolutely unapproachable by web designers > > GWT was a nightmare to set up and integrate, but once that was done (3 > grueling days), > it was easy to use and add components. > The designer integration is spotty, but doable (via UiBinder) > and there is GUI builder tool support. > > Overall winner - Tapestry > Close runner-up - GWT > > I decided to use both, since they can be meshed together quite easily. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
