I really don't want to keep this going but you continue the FUD. The
FUD I was talking about is the claim that you need some sort of genius
to work with Tapestry. Thats just over hype. Tapestry seems quite
easy and I have seen quite average developers working with it, anyone
that can do the basics of Java, which they also need for Click can work
with Tapestry.
Considering that anyone going to learn either Click or Tapestry needs
Java, learning the framework isn't a big jump.
Tapestry with a nice setup - a book and things like Spindle is just as
simple as Click. Tapestry also has a lot more power underneath and I
suspect many people would appreciate that later on.
I really like Cayenne, but to me "simple to use" just wasn't the total
reason. The modeler is great but it's concepts do take a little
learning. If I wanted totally simple I would have went elsewhere .. but
would have lost a few advantages as well.
Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Ahmed.
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Oct 14 2005 - 16:55:40 EDT