posted 19 years ago
Not simplicity for me, simplicity for you! Much of what goes on in Tapestry is complicated, I suppose, but the end result, from a Tapestry developer's point of view, is pretty simple: objects, methods, properties. To me, coming up with "schemes" for URLs, and updating various files (web.xml, struts-config.xml) to make it work, and writing entire new classes for each new operation is NOT simple. Tapestry, with listener methods and really good form support, is simple. The data just comes up as properties on your objects.
I know sometimes I like to totally understand a technology before I'll use it. That may not be practical for Tapestry, since there are a lot of moving parts: each simple enough in its own right, but if you try to force an understanding of all the interactions, you may just confuse yourself.
Part of the complexity problem of Tapestry is that it is, in fact, very open ended. For example, if you are using JSPs, and you want your JSPs to be stored in a database, and not inside your WAR file, too bad.
If Tapestry is complex, it is because it gives you options here. It is reasonable to extend Tapestry so that some or all of the information normally obtained from a WAR file (templates, specifications, messages) comes from some other source, such as a database. That's good, because you're not locked in. For a beginner determined to undestand all of Tapestry prematurely, that's a problem, since they'll hit brick walls where they can't quite figure out where templates come from, or why the interface for the template subsystem is so vague. So be it.
--<br />Howard M. Lewis Ship<br />Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant<br />Creator, Jakarta Tapestry<br />Creator, Jakarta HiveMind<br /><a href="http://howardlewisship.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://howardlewisship.com</a>