Re: Enterprise using WO

Howdy Mark (et al.),

On 21/05/2005, at 10:31 PM, Mark F. Murphy wrote:

> At 1:14 PM -0300 5/20/05, Alejandro M. Ramallo wrote:
>> We are using Hiberate now for several reasons:
>
> Why are you still using WO's presentation layer?
>
> Why not go all the way and use something like tapestry (which is 
> Wo'esk)?

"Going all the way" is probably not the best reason to choose a 
framework (considering that the WO license fee is pretty much 
negligible for a commercial project).

Of course, reasons that could justify choosing Tapestry over WOF would 
be: that its open source, that there may be more developers with 
Tapestry experience, that it works well with Hibernate (and Spring 
...).

However, personally, I would like to know whether or not Tapestry is a 
better Web framework than WOF (for example, in terms of functionality, 
design, and maturity).

Can you (or anyone else on the list) give an informed comparison of the 
two?  I know they are similar component-based framework (and as you 
suggested, Tapestry was inspired by WebObjects).

Does Tapestry have a "WO Builder" (or better)?

Cheers,
Ashley.


--
Ashley Aitken
Perth, Western Australia
mrhatken at mac dot com
Skype Name: MrHatken (GMT + 8 Hours!)