On 14 juil. 2012, at 03:49, John Huss wrote: > In general though there is nothing compelling enough for me to think about > rewriting existing code in Tapestry (or any framework). For new projects it > might be worth a look, but there are lot of frameworks out there and I would > put many in front of Tapestry. If I was doing a lot of HTML pages anymore I > would look hard at using Play 2.0 with Scala.
I won't play with Play. I twitted this post a couple of months ago: http://whilefalse.blogspot.fr/2012/03/why-im-moving-away-from-play-framework.html (that's not the only complain I read but it's the most complete). Anyway, we have the comfort to use a very good but also reliable technology. When I did WO consulting, it was a pain to hear all the time: "what is the future of WO?". Now I use it to sell our solution and our clients don't care. However moving to Cayenne seems to be a good move, something to explore at least because having 2/3 of open source code is good for the community, to get more traction (I guess). I agree with Alexander and some other: Cayenne seems to be close from EOF, anything else will cost too much and nobody will do that job. So Montage (?) + ERRest + ERCayenne seem to be enticing (but what about D2W I love?). Philippe @prabier
_______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
