I know you are gently ribbing with the Google comment, but 'click'
seems to be a popular word :-)
Anyhoo, http://click.sf.net/
On 09/06/06, Gentry, Michael (Contractor) <michael_gentr..anniemae.com> wrote:
> Good luck trying to find the Click web site with a Google search .. :-)
>
> I've done a lot of WO, which is what led me to try Tapestry. There are
> things I far prefer in WO and things I prefer in Tapestry. Tapestry is
> definitely not a WO replacement, which caused me a bit of trouble in my
> expectations. I think part of it is the whole Servlet orientation,
> which WO doesn't have to care about.
>
> /dev/mrg
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Hopson [mailto:geoff.hopso..mail.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2006 9:56 AM
> To: cayenne-use..ncubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Tapestry tutorial advice
>
>
> >
> > > Andrus as a person with WO experience, which of the other
> > > frameworks do you think works the best?
> >
> > I like Click. Don't know how representative this is of a "former WO
> > user" :-)
> >
> > Andrus
> >
>
> I like Click as well. Tapestry doesn't "feel" right to me, kinda
> kludgy after WO. Click is clean and simple, debugging is a breeze,
> nothing magic going on under the covers, render chunks of pages
> (forms, tables etc) completely in code, xhtml compliancy right there.
> Certainly faster to develop with and seems to run faster too.
>
> That's two...
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Jun 09 2006 - 10:21:51 EDT