• Post Reply Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other Pie Elite all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Ron McLeod
  • Paul Clapham
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • paul wheaton
  • Rob Spoor
  • Devaka Cooray
Saloon Keepers:
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Tim Holloway
  • Carey Brown
  • Frits Walraven
  • Tim Moores
Bartenders:
  • Mikalai Zaikin

Tapestry and Simplicity

 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 15304
6
Mac OS X IntelliJ IDE Chrome
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
You mention in this thread that simplicity was one of your goals when developing Tapestry. At first glance, there seems to be more complexity than some other frameworks available. I think some of this has to do with the nature of Tapestry being different from all the other known frameworks (Struts, Webworks).

Could you elaborate on this a little bit? If you have in another thread, just point me to that thread.
 
author
Posts: 38
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
    Number of slices to send:
    Optional 'thank-you' note:
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
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.
 
What's wrong? Where are you going? Stop! Read this tiny ad:
a bit of art, as a gift, the permaculture playing cards
https://gardener-gift.com
reply
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic