> I also notice that you are one of the developers ..
I wasn't a Click developer when we run the framework comparison tests
at my actual employer. In fact, we choose it (even if it was in very
early stage), because it was so easy to learn, and we knew that even
if it would turn out to be a bad decision we would loose only a day
of learning(and that's nothing compared to how much time must be(and we
did) invested in many other frameworks covering the entire J2EE spectra).
> I was wondering why
> you were over-hyping it and dropping in the obviously incorrect FUD
> about Tapestry.
Sorry if you had the impression that I would "drop in" FUD about Tapestry.
The fact that Tapestry takes some time to be *mastered* the right way is
recognized by everybody who did this process and even by the author(s) - just
read the mailing lists.
I must say that *I just love Tapestry* and really enjoy the work with it.
Unfortunately I can't say the same thing about all my coworkers, as my success
in convincing the management to migrate some of our projects to Tapestry
turned out to be one of the scenario I described before.
Unfortunately I saw this happening in many other projects(that use powerful but
complex technologies), so it was not an isolated case, and one can't blame in all those
cases (as we developers usually do) the management for bad decisions :).
It's simply the "human factor" that must also be putted into the equation.
Cayenne is also a very good example of "a simple to use and learn" framework.
The Cayenne Modeler is a fantastic tool, and everyone who worked with WebObjects
knows why :). There are other very good ORMs, but when you present to a developer
the Cayenne Modeler, he will be productive right away.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Oct 14 2005 - 08:29:11 EDT