3.0.4/doc/forrest/content/xdocs/quotes.xml - tapestry3 - Git at Google

 <?xml version="1.0"?>
 <!-- $Id$ -->
 <!DOCTYPE document PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V1.2//EN" "./dtd/document-v12.dtd">
 <document>

  <header>
   <title>Jakarta Tapestry - Quotes</title>
  </header>

 <body>


 <p>This page contains quotes from the Tapestry community, appearing on the
 Tapestry mailing lists
 and in online forums such as
 	<link href="http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=12750" target="_top">TheServerSide.com</link>.
 </p>
 <p>
 <small>These entries have been editted for grammar and readability.</small>
 </p>


 <section>
 		<title>Dorothy Gantenbein</title>

 <p>
 We used Tapestry to implement the monitoring and administration console
 for
 a wireless network management product.  Initially, we implemented a
 demonstration using standard JSP but we realized that JSPs presented
  difficulties for implementation.  Some of our requirements were a very
 aggressive development schedule, integration with EJB 2.0 beans, ability
 to
 write modular reusable components, very reliable, easy code maintenance,
  internationalization, and of course easier debugging than the generated
 JSP
 code.  Tapestry met all of our requirements and helped us proceed onto a
  successful release.
 </p>
 <p>
 After reading the tutorial and reviewing the examples, we started with
 writing simple components.  We started with a StatusImage
 component.  The
 GIF for the status image should be localized and selected based on
 standard
  network status states.  Another example of a simple component was a
 validating IP address
 text field.  The IP address field uses the Tapestry
 validation framework.  After that, we moved onto more complex components
 like the StatusTable shown in the figure.
 This table has a varying number of rows depending on the configuration of the product using the Tapestry
 Foreach component (very cool).  This StatusTable makes use of another
  essential Tapestry component, the Conditional.  Looking at the Actions
 columns, the set of actions is conditional based on the row.  All this
 logic
  happens in the Java class and is not embedded into our HTML making
 maintenance much easier.
 </p>

 <p>
 Finally, we integrated servlets and JSPs into our Tapestry web
 application.
  We needed servlet integration for charting and JSPs for reporting.  With
 all
  this flexibility, we could use each technology where they worked best.

 Overall, all of Tapestry's flexibility along with its clean
 object-oriented
  architecture made our web interface shine.
 </p>


  <link href="images/success/edit-form.gif">Screen shot 1</link>
  <link href="images/success/status-table.gif">Screen shot 2</link>


 </section>

 <section>
 	<title>Jason Cox</title>

 <p>
 When I see things like "I can use Struts+Tiles+JSP 2.0 Taglibs" I kind of chuckle.
  While you have to learn three different, albeit related, technologies
  I just have to use Tapestry. With this kind of mindset, is it any wonder
  companies are looking to ASP for their front-ends?
 </p>

 <p>
 	When I took my current position, I decided to use ASP to develop the front-end
 	 piece for similar reasons ...

 	I was fortunate to find Tapestry before I started development in ASP.
 	 Not only did it allow for me to meet my goals, but I actually have fun developing now.
 	 I used to spend at least a day formatting and introducing the
 	 proper presentation logic into an application. What took a day
 	 now takes maybe a couple of hours. Performance is excellence, the MVC design couldn't be
 	 better, and no messy JSP compilations to worry about.
 	</p>

 <p>To me, simplicity with functionality is the greatest achievement of the Tapestry framework.
 </p>
 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Paul Witt</title>
 <p>
 Of all the web presentation frameworks out there, Tapestry is the most elegant. </p>

 <p>
 For me ELEGANT is the goal of a programmer/developer (I've been around awhile).
 When, in your MVC framework, VIEW is pure HTML, and your CONTROL - controls (wow - nice control; exception/debugger/session handlers they are --
 well, elegant) and the link to your model is - often as simple (elegant) as get/set,
 then the philosophy of web applications has moved to a new and cleaner level.
 </p>

 <p>
 But elegance is a moving target, and Tapestry, with this latest release 3.0,
 puts me not only on board (I already am) but I've fastened my seatbeat, and I'm ready for takeoff.
 </p>


 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Miles Egan</title>

 <p>
 The learning curve for Tapestry is still somewhat steep ... but I'm
 really enjoying it now that I'm beginning to get it and, most importantly,
 I don't feel like I'm writing much, if any, superfluous code.  It really seems
 like all the code directly contributes to functionality and that there's very little boilerplate.
 One of the hallmarks of a good framework, in my opinion.
 </p>


 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Andrus Adamchik </title>
 <p>
 You know, Tapestry in fact is different from your average JSP taglib.
 Anyone who had a chance to use component-based web frameworks
 (like WebObjects, I don't know any other in this category) would know what I
 am talking about. This is a *different* and highly powerful and convenient way of doing things.
 </p>
 <p>
 Surprisingly enough with so many web application layers out there, Tapestry seems to be the only
 one (OpenSource, that is) that allows you to create a set of reusable components
 and build the design around this. The level of reuse is unmatched with anything JSP.
 In many ways it is even stronger than commercial implementation of the same design idea (WebObjects).
 In particular it makes it extremely easy for graphics designers to modify HTML, since dynamic content
 does not use *any* custom tags. Also the amount of code (and time) it
 takes to hook up an average model layer to the HTML presentation is so small
 that at first you may think you've missed something along the way :-).
 </p>

 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Chris Wilson</title>
 I've said it before and I'll say it again...
 You owe it to yourself to take a serious look at Tapestry.
 It's the most exciting model in Java web development
 I've seen in a long time. It really allows you to build applications--not web sites--that "execute on the web." Very cool stuff.


 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>David Solis</title>

 <p>
 Tapestry is the best solution to the presentation tier and it provides a clean separation of content and developer code.
 First, I extended it for WAP support, then I developed several WAP components and
 finally I developed a complete email application for WAP in record time.
 </p>

 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Jim Birchfield</title>
 <p>
  When using Struts or Velocity, in order to see what the finished
 page will look like, our graphic designers
 must assemble the application, deploy it ... they
 basically lose all the luxuries of WYSIWYG development ...
 I spent 30 minutes or so with one of our graphic designers here,
 and he was giddy at what I showed him as I redesigned one of our smaller
 apps using Tapestry.
 </p>
 <p>
 Bottom line for us is this: We have graphic designers and we have developers,
 and I don't want them to necessarily have to know each others' job to get things done.
 Tapestry is the best framework I have seen that offers this sort of separation. </p>

 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Jiri Lundak</title>

 <p>
 As a 'lay developer' using Tapestry I can only recommend it.
 We have built a content management system
 based on Tapestry, plus multiple sites that are now powered by it.
 Thanks to its component architecture, we
 are able to publish any kind of our metadata-driven business objects with just
 a handful of generic, highly dynamic pages, using customizable components.
 All business logic is encapsulated in business objects
 and services, so there is not really much logic in the presentation layer besides the navigation parts.
 </p>
 <p>
 The learning curve is not flat, but is really worth
 the effort. If you need to bring a dynamic web-app to the browser
 Tapestry offers many predefined and stable components to build on.
 We have gone with Tapestry and we will continue to use it
 in the next couple of projects needing a web-interface, too.
 </p>


 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Malcom Edgar</title>

 <p>
 I just wanted to send you a quick note of appreciation for your Tapestry
 framework. It is a truly original and innovative approach.
 </p>
 <p>
 While the learning curve is steep compared to thinner webapp frameworks, I
 have found it is well worth the effort. The amount of code I am having to
 write is greatly reduced and I am achieving a much greater level of reuse.
 </p>


 </section>


 <section>
 		<title>Mind Bridge</title>
 <p>
 I just want to second the positive comments about Tapestry.
 We have evaluated a lot of frameworks in the past couple of years,
 and in our opinion Tapestry is the only open source Java framework
 at the moment that provides everything necessary for Web-centric component
 oriented development.
 </p>
 <p>
 The most important feature of Tapestry is
 indisputably the ability to package common
 Web functionality into components that can then
 be effortlessly reused again and again. Building a
 Tapestry application is pretty much like playing with
 Lego bricks -- all you have to do is just fit the different
 pieces together and not worry about how each brick would
 work internally or how the different pieces would interract
 with one another (an OO approach at its best). As a result,
 after gaining some experience and accumulating a set of components,
 one can build incredibly complex Web applications quickly and easily,
 and yet be assured that those applications are of a very high quality.
 </p>
 <p>
 Tapestry has another major advantage as well --
 it provides very clean separation between presentation and logic
 (cleaner than that of the most commonly used frameworks). The
 design of its templates is also very mindful of the actual web
 development process, accomodates very nicely the work of the
 web designers from the start, and allows them to play along
 even in later stages of the application development. This,
 again, is something rarely found in the other frameworks.
 </p>

 <p>
 I will mention just one more superb feature -- the Tapestry design
 and APIs provide a huge number of extension points that allow you to
 customize the behaviour of the framework almost to no
 end. In order to achieve a specific goal for one customer we twisted the
 behaviour of the system so much, that Howard would faint if he sees
 it. In any case, being able to easily modify and extend specific elements
 of the framework is a major advantage.
 </p>
 <p>
 This may sound a bit like an advertisement, but it is not --
 we are just very satisfied users. We've
 got a significant increase in productivity, we've got increased quality,
 we've got happy web designers, and we've
 put an end to the repetitive operations -- it would be hard to think
 of a better scenario.
 </p>
 <p>
 If you are experienced in OO and/or components and care about
 Web development, I would suggest that you have a look at Tapestry.
 I would be very surprised if you do not find it
 a far more viable solution for your needs than JSP or Struts,
 for example.
 </p>


 </section>


 <section>
 		<title>Luis Neves</title>
 <p>
 Actually what drove me to Tapestry wasn't the saved development time, it was
 the sheer beauty of it :-)
 </p>
 <p>
 I come from an ASP/VB background and I was getting sick and tired of that mess, designers
 constantly asking me "Is it OK to move this part of code to the bottom
 of the page?" , "Could you take a look and see if I didn't mess anything
 when I added the picture?", "Ohh, I'm sorry. that was an include file,
 I thought it was just a comment" ... well you get the picture, and tools like
 Dreamweaver only help to some extent. The
 perfect separation of roles was what drew me to Tapestry ... the rest of the things
 (and there are a lot of them) were the iceing on the cake.
 </p>


 </section>

 <section>
 		<title>Adam Greene</title>

 <p>
 The company that I work for did a research project with the
 National Research Council of Canada, and we spent several months reviewing
 web services, J2EE, and Database systems for a technical risk project that we were doing. Out of that we learned 3 things:
 </p>
 <ol>
 <li>Web services were immature. </li>
 <li>J2EE was overrated. </li>
 <li>That JSP and anything else that stuck anything
         other than HTML into an HTML file was not only counter-productive but
         dangerous to the life of the project.</li>
 </ol>


 <p>
 I will give you an example. We have a "legacy" project that is done in
 JSP (all of our development efforts have moved to Tapestry). We had to perfect the
 logic of the project while the text and look of the project was still in flux. Everytime our
 graphics guys fixed the pages, code would get damaged, or vice versa. Everytime
 our graphics guys created new pages, our programmers would have to go mark
 up the pages with code and could not work on the logic of the given page until after
 our graphics guy had finished it. On top of that the whole system has to be translated
 into French. Which means that we not only have doubled our work, we have actually ended up
 tripling it, pushing back deadlines, etc. If it had not been for the fact that we "inherited" the code,
 it would have been done in Tapestry to start with, because:
 </p>

 <ol>
 <li>Our graphics designers could do their thing without disturbing the work of our programmers. </li>
 <li>The programmer wouldn't have to wait for the designers to finish a page to start work on it.
 Many times our programmers work with pages that are simple white with text and form fields and after it works,
 our designers integrate the pages together. </li>
 <li>Localizing for French simply involves
 copying the existing layout, replacing English text with French, and saving it with a new file extension ... no need to recreate the code of a JSP. </li>
 <li>If our client doesn't like the look, it is a
 simple matter of changing it, no code is disturbed, no code is broken,
 it will work when it is done being modified without our programmers even
 looking at it. (And our designers don't even know Java....)</li>
 </ol>

 <p>
 If you are using a language or framework that puts proprietary (non-HTML) code into your
 templates or HTML files, I seriously suggest that you take a look at the approach that Tapestry
 takes as you will probably find that it is quite revolutionary in its approach to web development (as stated above).
 </p>
 <p>
  So take it from someone who just researched existing and upcoming technology for three months, Tapestry
 frags the snot out of frameworks like JSF, Struts, and the like.
 </p>

 <p>
 I will give Apache one thing though, they have built a lot of production quality
 software that beats even Microsoft. We added Torque to Tapestry to
 fill a void in the database support (Tapestry by itself has no database support) because Tapestry's model
 fit so perfectly that I can actually create a web page to display all the records in a table using only
 14 lines of Java code, of which less than half (only 6 lines of code) are actually
 hand written (the rest are auto-generated by Eclipse). So I guess that is another point
 for Tapestry: Integration of other packages / APIs that support a Java Beans
 style is a no-brainer. No taglibs need to be written, no new scripting needs to be created, it simply works.
 </p>

 </section>


 </body>
 </document>
	<?xml version="1.0"?>
	<!-- $Id$ -->
	<!DOCTYPE document PUBLIC "-//APACHE//DTD Documentation V1.2//EN" "./dtd/document-v12.dtd">
	<document>

	<header>
	<title>Jakarta Tapestry - Quotes</title>
	</header>

	<body>


	<p>This page contains quotes from the Tapestry community, appearing on the
	Tapestry mailing lists
	and in online forums such as
	<link href="http://theserverside.com/home/thread.jsp?thread_id=12750" target="_top">TheServerSide.com</link>.
	</p>
	<p>
	<small>These entries have been editted for grammar and readability.</small>
	</p>


	<section>
	<title>Dorothy Gantenbein</title>

	<p>
	We used Tapestry to implement the monitoring and administration console
	for
	a wireless network management product. Initially, we implemented a
	demonstration using standard JSP but we realized that JSPs presented
	difficulties for implementation. Some of our requirements were a very
	aggressive development schedule, integration with EJB 2.0 beans, ability
	to
	write modular reusable components, very reliable, easy code maintenance,
	internationalization, and of course easier debugging than the generated
	JSP
	code. Tapestry met all of our requirements and helped us proceed onto a
	successful release.
	</p>
	<p>
	After reading the tutorial and reviewing the examples, we started with
	writing simple components. We started with a StatusImage
	component. The
	GIF for the status image should be localized and selected based on
	standard
	network status states. Another example of a simple component was a
	validating IP address
	text field. The IP address field uses the Tapestry
	validation framework. After that, we moved onto more complex components
	like the StatusTable shown in the figure.
	This table has a varying number of rows depending on the configuration of the product using the Tapestry
	Foreach component (very cool). This StatusTable makes use of another
	essential Tapestry component, the Conditional. Looking at the Actions
	columns, the set of actions is conditional based on the row. All this
	logic
	happens in the Java class and is not embedded into our HTML making
	maintenance much easier.
	</p>

	<p>
	Finally, we integrated servlets and JSPs into our Tapestry web
	application.
	We needed servlet integration for charting and JSPs for reporting. With
	all
	this flexibility, we could use each technology where they worked best.

	Overall, all of Tapestry's flexibility along with its clean
	object-oriented
	architecture made our web interface shine.
	</p>


	<link href="images/success/edit-form.gif">Screen shot 1</link>
	<link href="images/success/status-table.gif">Screen shot 2</link>


	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Jason Cox</title>

	<p>
	When I see things like "I can use Struts+Tiles+JSP 2.0 Taglibs" I kind of chuckle.
	While you have to learn three different, albeit related, technologies
	I just have to use Tapestry. With this kind of mindset, is it any wonder
	companies are looking to ASP for their front-ends?
	</p>

	<p>
	When I took my current position, I decided to use ASP to develop the front-end
	piece for similar reasons ...

	I was fortunate to find Tapestry before I started development in ASP.
	Not only did it allow for me to meet my goals, but I actually have fun developing now.
	I used to spend at least a day formatting and introducing the
	proper presentation logic into an application. What took a day
	now takes maybe a couple of hours. Performance is excellence, the MVC design couldn't be
	better, and no messy JSP compilations to worry about.
	</p>

	<p>To me, simplicity with functionality is the greatest achievement of the Tapestry framework.
	</p>
	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Paul Witt</title>
	<p>
	Of all the web presentation frameworks out there, Tapestry is the most elegant. </p>

	<p>
	For me ELEGANT is the goal of a programmer/developer (I've been around awhile).
	When, in your MVC framework, VIEW is pure HTML, and your CONTROL - controls (wow - nice control; exception/debugger/session handlers they are --
	well, elegant) and the link to your model is - often as simple (elegant) as get/set,
	then the philosophy of web applications has moved to a new and cleaner level.
	</p>

	<p>
	But elegance is a moving target, and Tapestry, with this latest release 3.0,
	puts me not only on board (I already am) but I've fastened my seatbeat, and I'm ready for takeoff.
	</p>


	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Miles Egan</title>

	<p>
	The learning curve for Tapestry is still somewhat steep ... but I'm
	really enjoying it now that I'm beginning to get it and, most importantly,
	I don't feel like I'm writing much, if any, superfluous code. It really seems
	like all the code directly contributes to functionality and that there's very little boilerplate.
	One of the hallmarks of a good framework, in my opinion.
	</p>


	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Andrus Adamchik </title>
	<p>
	You know, Tapestry in fact is different from your average JSP taglib.
	Anyone who had a chance to use component-based web frameworks
	(like WebObjects, I don't know any other in this category) would know what I
	am talking about. This is a different and highly powerful and convenient way of doing things.
	</p>
	<p>
	Surprisingly enough with so many web application layers out there, Tapestry seems to be the only
	one (OpenSource, that is) that allows you to create a set of reusable components
	and build the design around this. The level of reuse is unmatched with anything JSP.
	In many ways it is even stronger than commercial implementation of the same design idea (WebObjects).
	In particular it makes it extremely easy for graphics designers to modify HTML, since dynamic content
	does not use any custom tags. Also the amount of code (and time) it
	takes to hook up an average model layer to the HTML presentation is so small
	that at first you may think you've missed something along the way :-).
	</p>

	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Chris Wilson</title>
	I've said it before and I'll say it again...
	You owe it to yourself to take a serious look at Tapestry.
	It's the most exciting model in Java web development
	I've seen in a long time. It really allows you to build applications--not web sites--that "execute on the web." Very cool stuff.


	</section>

	<section>
	<title>David Solis</title>

	<p>
	Tapestry is the best solution to the presentation tier and it provides a clean separation of content and developer code.
	First, I extended it for WAP support, then I developed several WAP components and
	finally I developed a complete email application for WAP in record time.
	</p>

	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Jim Birchfield</title>
	<p>
	When using Struts or Velocity, in order to see what the finished
	page will look like, our graphic designers
	must assemble the application, deploy it ... they
	basically lose all the luxuries of WYSIWYG development ...
	I spent 30 minutes or so with one of our graphic designers here,
	and he was giddy at what I showed him as I redesigned one of our smaller
	apps using Tapestry.
	</p>
	<p>
	Bottom line for us is this: We have graphic designers and we have developers,
	and I don't want them to necessarily have to know each others' job to get things done.
	Tapestry is the best framework I have seen that offers this sort of separation. </p>

	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Jiri Lundak</title>

	<p>
	As a 'lay developer' using Tapestry I can only recommend it.
	We have built a content management system
	based on Tapestry, plus multiple sites that are now powered by it.
	Thanks to its component architecture, we
	are able to publish any kind of our metadata-driven business objects with just
	a handful of generic, highly dynamic pages, using customizable components.
	All business logic is encapsulated in business objects
	and services, so there is not really much logic in the presentation layer besides the navigation parts.
	</p>
	<p>
	The learning curve is not flat, but is really worth
	the effort. If you need to bring a dynamic web-app to the browser
	Tapestry offers many predefined and stable components to build on.
	We have gone with Tapestry and we will continue to use it
	in the next couple of projects needing a web-interface, too.
	</p>


	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Malcom Edgar</title>

	<p>
	I just wanted to send you a quick note of appreciation for your Tapestry
	framework. It is a truly original and innovative approach.
	</p>
	<p>
	While the learning curve is steep compared to thinner webapp frameworks, I
	have found it is well worth the effort. The amount of code I am having to
	write is greatly reduced and I am achieving a much greater level of reuse.
	</p>


	</section>


	<section>
	<title>Mind Bridge</title>
	<p>
	I just want to second the positive comments about Tapestry.
	We have evaluated a lot of frameworks in the past couple of years,
	and in our opinion Tapestry is the only open source Java framework
	at the moment that provides everything necessary for Web-centric component
	oriented development.
	</p>
	<p>
	The most important feature of Tapestry is
	indisputably the ability to package common
	Web functionality into components that can then
	be effortlessly reused again and again. Building a
	Tapestry application is pretty much like playing with
	Lego bricks -- all you have to do is just fit the different
	pieces together and not worry about how each brick would
	work internally or how the different pieces would interract
	with one another (an OO approach at its best). As a result,
	after gaining some experience and accumulating a set of components,
	one can build incredibly complex Web applications quickly and easily,
	and yet be assured that those applications are of a very high quality.
	</p>
	<p>
	Tapestry has another major advantage as well --
	it provides very clean separation between presentation and logic
	(cleaner than that of the most commonly used frameworks). The
	design of its templates is also very mindful of the actual web
	development process, accomodates very nicely the work of the
	web designers from the start, and allows them to play along
	even in later stages of the application development. This,
	again, is something rarely found in the other frameworks.
	</p>

	<p>
	I will mention just one more superb feature -- the Tapestry design
	and APIs provide a huge number of extension points that allow you to
	customize the behaviour of the framework almost to no
	end. In order to achieve a specific goal for one customer we twisted the
	behaviour of the system so much, that Howard would faint if he sees
	it. In any case, being able to easily modify and extend specific elements
	of the framework is a major advantage.
	</p>
	<p>
	This may sound a bit like an advertisement, but it is not --
	we are just very satisfied users. We've
	got a significant increase in productivity, we've got increased quality,
	we've got happy web designers, and we've
	put an end to the repetitive operations -- it would be hard to think
	of a better scenario.
	</p>
	<p>
	If you are experienced in OO and/or components and care about
	Web development, I would suggest that you have a look at Tapestry.
	I would be very surprised if you do not find it
	a far more viable solution for your needs than JSP or Struts,
	for example.
	</p>


	</section>


	<section>
	<title>Luis Neves</title>
	<p>
	Actually what drove me to Tapestry wasn't the saved development time, it was
	the sheer beauty of it :-)
	</p>
	<p>
	I come from an ASP/VB background and I was getting sick and tired of that mess, designers
	constantly asking me "Is it OK to move this part of code to the bottom
	of the page?" , "Could you take a look and see if I didn't mess anything
	when I added the picture?", "Ohh, I'm sorry. that was an include file,
	I thought it was just a comment" ... well you get the picture, and tools like
	Dreamweaver only help to some extent. The
	perfect separation of roles was what drew me to Tapestry ... the rest of the things
	(and there are a lot of them) were the iceing on the cake.
	</p>


	</section>

	<section>
	<title>Adam Greene</title>

	<p>
	The company that I work for did a research project with the
	National Research Council of Canada, and we spent several months reviewing
	web services, J2EE, and Database systems for a technical risk project that we were doing. Out of that we learned 3 things:
	</p>
	<ol>
	<li>Web services were immature. </li>
	<li>J2EE was overrated. </li>
	<li>That JSP and anything else that stuck anything
	other than HTML into an HTML file was not only counter-productive but
	dangerous to the life of the project.</li>
	</ol>


	<p>
	I will give you an example. We have a "legacy" project that is done in
	JSP (all of our development efforts have moved to Tapestry). We had to perfect the
	logic of the project while the text and look of the project was still in flux. Everytime our
	graphics guys fixed the pages, code would get damaged, or vice versa. Everytime
	our graphics guys created new pages, our programmers would have to go mark
	up the pages with code and could not work on the logic of the given page until after
	our graphics guy had finished it. On top of that the whole system has to be translated
	into French. Which means that we not only have doubled our work, we have actually ended up
	tripling it, pushing back deadlines, etc. If it had not been for the fact that we "inherited" the code,
	it would have been done in Tapestry to start with, because:
	</p>

	<ol>
	<li>Our graphics designers could do their thing without disturbing the work of our programmers. </li>
	<li>The programmer wouldn't have to wait for the designers to finish a page to start work on it.
	Many times our programmers work with pages that are simple white with text and form fields and after it works,
	our designers integrate the pages together. </li>
	<li>Localizing for French simply involves
	copying the existing layout, replacing English text with French, and saving it with a new file extension ... no need to recreate the code of a JSP. </li>
	<li>If our client doesn't like the look, it is a
	simple matter of changing it, no code is disturbed, no code is broken,
	it will work when it is done being modified without our programmers even
	looking at it. (And our designers don't even know Java....)</li>
	</ol>

	<p>
	If you are using a language or framework that puts proprietary (non-HTML) code into your
	templates or HTML files, I seriously suggest that you take a look at the approach that Tapestry
	takes as you will probably find that it is quite revolutionary in its approach to web development (as stated above).
	</p>
	<p>
	So take it from someone who just researched existing and upcoming technology for three months, Tapestry
	frags the snot out of frameworks like JSF, Struts, and the like.
	</p>

	<p>
	I will give Apache one thing though, they have built a lot of production quality
	software that beats even Microsoft. We added Torque to Tapestry to
	fill a void in the database support (Tapestry by itself has no database support) because Tapestry's model
	fit so perfectly that I can actually create a web page to display all the records in a table using only
	14 lines of Java code, of which less than half (only 6 lines of code) are actually
	hand written (the rest are auto-generated by Eclipse). So I guess that is another point
	for Tapestry: Integration of other packages / APIs that support a Java Beans
	style is a no-brainer. No taglibs need to be written, no new scripting needs to be created, it simply works.
	</p>

	</section>


	</body>
	</document>