On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 8:41 AM Rafael Bugajewski <raf...@juicycocktail.com> wrote:
> Congratulations! Thanks to the core team for your continuous work and the > effort you put into maintaining Tapestry. > Thanks! > I think the whole industry goes the way of trying to simplify things (just > take a look at the most recent programming languages & frameworks). If > we’re talking about modernizing and competing with other frameworks, I > would like to see Tapestry reducing the complexity that is currently > required to grasp the framework and its various concepts (which are > technically great, but sometimes hard to understand if you just start > working with Tapestry). I think this will only work by providing old & new > APIs at the same time and by making the upgrade path and improvements very > clear in the documentation. > Well, some stuff is indeed not simple, and I'd say the form support is the part which could use some new components to make at least the simpler scenarios simpler to implement (for example, when there are no loops). Which other areas do you think could or should be simplified? > Personally I’m also getting into the vibe of smaller services that > communicate with each other, instead of this one monolithic giant that > tries to be everything, but is nothing in the end. We use bootique-tapestry > (and also other Bootique-compatible integrations). I would like to see > Tapestry to also go in this direction and improve integration on similar > deployment environments. > We could definitely have some ideas to make microservices easier to build on the top of Tapestry-IoC. > On the other side, I’m currently pretty happy with the state of Tapestry > and with the framework keeping up with modern Java versions. > Thanks! -- Thiago
