On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Philippe Rabier <prab...@me.com> wrote:
> > 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). > That's about Play 1.x. Play 2.x is basically a complete rewrite in Scala. Play 2.x was selected to be part of the Typestack stack (the company behind scala), so Play 2.x being developed by a great team of developers and has corporate support available on demand. So the issues mentioned in this post are irrelevant to Play 2.x. Because of it's corporate backing now they are forced to provide a high level of robustness and also a certain degree of backwards compatibility going forward. As an aside, I would never use a library that relied on bytecode enhancement at runtime.
_______________________________________________ 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
