JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Jan Vissers
http://wicket.apache.org/

Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Emmanuel Sowah
Wao, this Wicket framework is becoming hotter and hotter each day. Worth
taking a serious look at it.

On Jan 2, 2008 9:06 PM, Jan Vissers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> http://wicket.apache.org/
>
> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Chris Lewis-5
Emmanuel,

I have not been using tapestry long. In fact it was only a few months
ago that I first heard of tapestry 4, at which point I bought Kent
Tong's book and began examining its possible use. Until tapestry I had
avoided web development in Java because I could not justify the time it
took to develop my projects in such a rigid environment. Worse was that
the 'scene' seemed largely filled with purists reeking of anti-pragmatism.
One day I noticed a note on the site about tapestry 5, and how one
should spend time in it as it would eclipse 4 and be basically
incompatible. That sounded odd, so I did research. As you may have
guessed, I learned about tapestry's progressive yet spotty history of
pushing the envelope while at the same time alienating many users from
adopting it. It seemed somewhat cruel to me, but I settled on being ok
as tapestry 4 was being, and is still being maintained. Bugs are being
fixed and new features are still finding themselves implemented.
Now, don't confuse my words - I don't look at this history and think it
was good to do some of the things that were done. If I were a manager I
might have legitimate concerns about using a framework with such a
liquid history. Then I starting working with T5, and if it took that
mistakes that were made to arrive at this juncture, I'll be so bold as
to say they were worth it.
People using T5 understand the 'risks' and disappointments you are
pointing out. They are no secret. On the contrary they are quite public.
As such I ask this of you: please cease with your regurgitated points
and annotations. We all know. We also all know about Wicket. It too is a
respectable and highly visible framework. Your points, which now are
just rants, are falling on dead ears here. If you seek an audience,
kindly find a more receptive one on which to spew your bile. However out
of respect for the users that constructively seek to support and use
this framework, and out of respect for your own professional profile,
please stop with such messages.

sincerely,
chris

Emmanuel Sowah wrote:

> Wao, this Wicket framework is becoming hotter and hotter each day. Worth
> taking a serious look at it.
>
> On Jan 2, 2008 9:06 PM, Jan Vissers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>  
>> http://wicket.apache.org/
>>
>> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
>> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>    
>
>  

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Yunhua Sang
>
> Emmanuel,
>
> please cease with your regurgitated points
> and annotations. We all know. We also all know about Wicket. It too is a
> respectable and highly visible framework. Your points, which now are
> just rants, are falling on dead ears here. If you seek an audience,
> kindly find a more receptive one on which to spew your bile. However out
> of respect for the users that constructively seek to support and use
> this framework, and out of respect for your own professional profile,
> please stop with such messages.
>
>
Thank you so much, Chris. Your words are exactly what I want to say.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Emmanuel Sowah
In reply to this post by Chris Lewis-5
Guys,

I read somewhere some time back that Kent Tong, a Tapestry commiter, is
writing a book on Wicket. Anyone has info on the status of this? And Kent,
if your reading, could you please shed some light on the availability of
your book on Wicket?

Regards,
Emmanuel

On Jan 3, 2008 10:11 PM, Chris Lewis <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Emmanuel,
>
> I have not been using tapestry long. In fact it was only a few months
> ago that I first heard of tapestry 4, at which point I bought Kent
> Tong's book and began examining its possible use. Until tapestry I had
> avoided web development in Java because I could not justify the time it
> took to develop my projects in such a rigid environment. Worse was that
> the 'scene' seemed largely filled with purists reeking of anti-pragmatism.
> One day I noticed a note on the site about tapestry 5, and how one
> should spend time in it as it would eclipse 4 and be basically
> incompatible. That sounded odd, so I did research. As you may have
> guessed, I learned about tapestry's progressive yet spotty history of
> pushing the envelope while at the same time alienating many users from
> adopting it. It seemed somewhat cruel to me, but I settled on being ok
> as tapestry 4 was being, and is still being maintained. Bugs are being
> fixed and new features are still finding themselves implemented.
> Now, don't confuse my words - I don't look at this history and think it
> was good to do some of the things that were done. If I were a manager I
> might have legitimate concerns about using a framework with such a
> liquid history. Then I starting working with T5, and if it took that
> mistakes that were made to arrive at this juncture, I'll be so bold as
> to say they were worth it.
> People using T5 understand the 'risks' and disappointments you are
> pointing out. They are no secret. On the contrary they are quite public.
> As such I ask this of you: please cease with your regurgitated points
> and annotations. We all know. We also all know about Wicket. It too is a
> respectable and highly visible framework. Your points, which now are
> just rants, are falling on dead ears here. If you seek an audience,
> kindly find a more receptive one on which to spew your bile. However out
> of respect for the users that constructively seek to support and use
> this framework, and out of respect for your own professional profile,
> please stop with such messages.
>
> sincerely,
> chris
>
> Emmanuel Sowah wrote:
> > Wao, this Wicket framework is becoming hotter and hotter each day. Worth
> > taking a serious look at it.
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2008 9:06 PM, Jan Vissers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> http://wicket.apache.org/
> >>
> >> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
> >> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Fravia HCU
Somewhere in Utrecht,  Francis Amanfo is laughing.

As for the book, I'm sure it will be a boon for Wicket developers.  I
enjoyed his T4 sample book.  Maybe you can ask Kent directly instead of
trolling.

On Jan 3, 2008 6:09 PM, Emmanuel Sowah <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Guys,
>
> I read somewhere some time back that Kent Tong, a Tapestry commiter, is
> writing a book on Wicket. Anyone has info on the status of this? And Kent,
> if your reading, could you please shed some light on the availability of
> your book on Wicket?
>
> Regards,
> Emmanuel
>
> On Jan 3, 2008 10:11 PM, Chris Lewis <[hidden email] > wrote:
>
> > Emmanuel,
> >
> > I have not been using tapestry long. In fact it was only a few months
> > ago that I first heard of tapestry 4, at which point I bought Kent
> > Tong's book and began examining its possible use. Until tapestry I had
> > avoided web development in Java because I could not justify the time it
> > took to develop my projects in such a rigid environment. Worse was that
> > the 'scene' seemed largely filled with purists reeking of
> anti-pragmatism.
> > One day I noticed a note on the site about tapestry 5, and how one
> > should spend time in it as it would eclipse 4 and be basically
> > incompatible. That sounded odd, so I did research. As you may have
> > guessed, I learned about tapestry's progressive yet spotty history of
> > pushing the envelope while at the same time alienating many users from
> > adopting it. It seemed somewhat cruel to me, but I settled on being ok
> > as tapestry 4 was being, and is still being maintained. Bugs are being
> > fixed and new features are still finding themselves implemented.
> > Now, don't confuse my words - I don't look at this history and think it
> > was good to do some of the things that were done. If I were a manager I
> > might have legitimate concerns about using a framework with such a
> > liquid history. Then I starting working with T5, and if it took that
> > mistakes that were made to arrive at this juncture, I'll be so bold as
> > to say they were worth it.
> > People using T5 understand the 'risks' and disappointments you are
> > pointing out. They are no secret. On the contrary they are quite public.
>
> > As such I ask this of you: please cease with your regurgitated points
> > and annotations. We all know. We also all know about Wicket. It too is a
> > respectable and highly visible framework. Your points, which now are
> > just rants, are falling on dead ears here. If you seek an audience,
> > kindly find a more receptive one on which to spew your bile. However out
> > of respect for the users that constructively seek to support and use
> > this framework, and out of respect for your own professional profile,
> > please stop with such messages.
> >
> > sincerely,
> > chris
> >
> > Emmanuel Sowah wrote:
> > > Wao, this Wicket framework is becoming hotter and hotter each day.
> Worth
> > > taking a serious look at it.
> > >
> > > On Jan 2, 2008 9:06 PM, Jan Vissers <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> http://wicket.apache.org/
> > >>
> > >> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
> > >> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Massimo Lusetti
In reply to this post by Emmanuel Sowah
On Jan 4, 2008 12:09 AM, Emmanuel Sowah <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Guys,
>
> I read somewhere some time back that Kent Tong, a Tapestry commiter, is
> writing a book on Wicket. Anyone has info on the status of this? And Kent,
> if your reading, could you please shed some light on the availability of
> your book on Wicket?

I've received a mail from Kent showing it's two new book, i suspect
cause I'm a purchaser of the T4 one here are the link.
http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDW

It's sad to say that in the email i read some resentment regarding
Tapestry from Kent but that's probably simply my opinion, the email is
private and i don't want to share it but I'm sure some others
customers on the list have received that too.

If you find Wicket more attractive then T5 please go and use Wicket.

Regards
--
Massimo
http://meridio.blogspot.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Angelo Turetta-5
In reply to this post by Fravia HCU
Fravia HCU wrote:
> Somewhere in Utrecht,  Francis Amanfo is laughing.
>
> As for the book, I'm sure it will be a boon for Wicket developers.  I
> enjoyed his T4 sample book.  Maybe you can ask Kent directly instead of
> trolling.

He IS Francis Amanfo. Look at:
http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=8015345&framed=y

Angelo.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Jan Vissers
In reply to this post by Jan Vissers
Seems like my question/thread got hijacked. Just to set the record
straight - I am not a fan of Wicket!

I'm just interested in wondering whether Portlet Support in T5 is a wish
that more of us share - only this way, we can try to convince T5's crew
to add it in the first release.

Regards,
-J.

Jan Vissers wrote:

> http://wicket.apache.org/
>
> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
>
>  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Mark Horn-2
I would be interested in portlet support in T5

On 1/9/08, Jan Vissers <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Seems like my question/thread got hijacked. Just to set the record
> straight - I am not a fan of Wicket!
>
> I'm just interested in wondering whether Portlet Support in T5 is a wish
> that more of us share - only this way, we can try to convince T5's crew
> to add it in the first release.
>
> Regards,
> -J.
>
> Jan Vissers wrote:
> > http://wicket.apache.org/
> >
> > Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
> > supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Michael Lake-2
Rather than posting to the list, it'd probably be more helpful to vote
on the issue here:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-1304

-m

Mark Horn wrote:

> I would be interested in portlet support in T5
>
> On 1/9/08, Jan Vissers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> Seems like my question/thread got hijacked. Just to set the record
>> straight - I am not a fan of Wicket!
>>
>> I'm just interested in wondering whether Portlet Support in T5 is a wish
>> that more of us share - only this way, we can try to convince T5's crew
>> to add it in the first release.
>>
>> Regards,
>> -J.
>>
>> Jan Vissers wrote:
>>    
>>> http://wicket.apache.org/
>>>
>>> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
>>> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>
>>    
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>  


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: JSR-168/JSR-286 revisited --- what's happening at the 'neighbours'

Jan Vissers
Thank you for pointing that out!
Go out and vote!

Michael Lake wrote:

> Rather than posting to the list, it'd probably be more helpful to vote
> on the issue here:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TAPESTRY-1304
>
> -m
>
> Mark Horn wrote:
>> I would be interested in portlet support in T5
>>
>> On 1/9/08, Jan Vissers <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>  
>>> Seems like my question/thread got hijacked. Just to set the record
>>> straight - I am not a fan of Wicket!
>>>
>>> I'm just interested in wondering whether Portlet Support in T5 is a
>>> wish
>>> that more of us share - only this way, we can try to convince T5's crew
>>> to add it in the first release.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> -J.
>>>
>>> Jan Vissers wrote:
>>>    
>>>> http://wicket.apache.org/
>>>>
>>>> Apart from wicket also switching to slf4j, the new version now also
>>>> supports JSR-168/JSR-286. Apparently without changing code.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>      
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>>
>>  
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]
>
>
>
>

--
Cumquat Information Technology
De Dreef 19
3706 BR Zeist
T +31 (0)30 - 6940490
F +31 (0)30 - 6940499
W http://www.cumquat.nl

E [hidden email]
M +31 6 51 169 556
B http://www.cumquat.nl/technology_atom10.xml



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]