Re: Project activity

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1124441297-15681-44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

On 8/19/05, Onno Scheffers <[email protected]> wrote:

Just for clarity on some aspect of Tapestry...

> Wicket is going to be very powerful, but is not yet as mature as either
> Barracuda or Tapestry. But it is fast becoming one of the most popular
> web based frameworks. I think it is really a framework to keep an eye on
> for the future. It takes a lot of ideas from Tapestry, but tries to keep
> it all simpler and does much more in code (where Tapestry requires lots
> of XML configuration files).

You can get rid of XML with annotations.

> My reasons for personally liking Barracuda best:
> - It is possible to get a 100% seperation of HTML and Java code. This
> really makes the framework stand out from the others. Web-designers can
> now create the templates and make them 100% (X)HTML compliant and they
> can even validate them with the W3C validators. Tapestry or Wicket will
> require you to insert special attributes into the templates, which will
> still keep them editable by a webdesigner, but it will break the
> compliancy and generate a lot of warnings in the validators.

The "special attribute" could also be (is configurable) the "id"
attribute which is and attribute of any object. So if you would like
to have it you can still have it.

> Onno

It seems to me a good an honest comparison.

Ciao
--=20
Massimo


------------=_1124441297-15681-44
Content-Type: text/plain; name="message-footer.txt"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message-footer.txt"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



--

Barracuda mailing list

[email protected]

http://www.objectweb.org/wws/lists/projects/barracuda


------------=_1124441297-15681-44--