And I forgot another huge reason for not replacing Tapestry-IoC in
Tapestry: backward compatibility. Unfortunately, we just can't break
compatibility in such a large way. Many people still void Tapestry due to
its past history of completely non-backward compatible changes and the
Tapestry team has already promised to not do that again.
On Thu, 16 May 2013 10:34:00 -0300, Michael Gentry <mgen...@masslight.net>
wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 10:23 PM, hantsy <han...@yahoo.com.cn> wrote:
Tapestry should embrace the existed and mature specs, such JSR330, Bean
Validation, Managed Bean, etc, Spring has supported them in 3.0
natively.
Tapestry already supports Bean Validation and JSR 299 annotations.
I use Tapestry and other tools because of the benefits they provide to me
and others, not because they conform to a manager's checklist. For me
personally, the 'standards' have never appealed to me because they always
seem ungainly and more difficult to use. If 'standards' work better for
you, that's great, but I'm glad there are alternatives to help me get my
work done and I'm glad Tapestry continues to evolve and improve. I'm
really looking forward to some of the changes in 5.4.
Standards do appeal to me, but that's one factor I take in consideration,
not the only one, nor the most important. Sometimes the standard isn't the
best option. JSF is a Java standard and it sucks. Hibernate was had way
more features (such as criteria queries) than JPA 1 (I haven't tried it,
but it seems JPA 2 closed much or all the gap to Hibernate).
--
Thiago H. de Paula Figueiredo
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
