Versions Compared


  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Lately, I've had noticeably more people asking me about Tapestry and why one should choose it over the other (Java) web frameworks. To me, Tapestry is a good compromise, just like Java is. Linus Torvalds, my fellow country man, has famously said "performance almost always matters". There are so many aspects to web development, and performance is often seen as one of the smallest of your problems because in the end "it always comes down to the database". However, a high performing framework solves many other problems. Today, a typical, reasonably well-implemented Java web application on a modest hardware can serve hundreds of concurrent requests, thousands of concurrent users and tens of thousands of users a day from a single server. Most start-ups never need to worry about the scaling out problem until they actually have the money to pay for it. Unfortunately, you can also easily make the implementation horribly slow, suffering from scalability problems from the get-go and even more unfortunately, it's easier to go wrong with some Java frameworks than with others. For what Tapestry offers, the performance of the framework itself, both in terms of cpu and memory consumption is simply phenomenal. Performance matters.

However, I really don't want to make this post about Tapestry's performance. As soon as you mention one thing about a particular framework, people tend to place in that category and forget about everything else. What I really like to give as an answer to people who ask why one should use Tapestry is this: because it is well-balanced and comprehensive. There are a lot of other web frameworks that are optimized with a certain thing in mind and in that narrow field, they typically beat the competioncompetition. It's difficult though to be a good all-around contender but that's exactly what Tapestry is all about. Tapestry doesn't force you to a certain development model - such as using sessions, always post, single url, ajax-only, thick RIA etc. If you just need to handle a specific case, such as building a single-page, desktop-like application for web, you could pick GWT, Flex or Vaadin, but if you are a building a generic, mixed static/dynamic content site with multiple pages you'd undoubtedly pick entirely different set of tools. Tapestry though, is an "enabling" technology - you could use it together with all three aforementioned RIA frameworks. You could also use and people have used Tapestry-IoC alone in non-web desktop applications. Not a whole lot of other "web" frameworks can claim suitability for such diverse use cases. Sadly, comprehensiveness of a framework can be a somewhat difficult area to objectively compare so each framework usually resorts to toting their best features to prove their superiority over others.

One criteria I personally use a lot in comparing effectiveness of competing solutions is their expressiveness and succinctness. Now, everybody knows that Java is a butt-ugly language (though it makes up on other departments, like performance and comprehensiveness). Today's Java is far from your grandfather's Java a few years back and Tapestry makes the best use of the more advanced, modern JVM techniques available today, such as bytecode manipulation, annotation-based meta programming and introspection without reflection. Tapestry code is purposefully remarkably succinct and minimal . Minimal effort required for creating Tapestry components makes it easy to refactor your application logic into reusable elements, rather than having to repeat yourself. Patterns in object-oriented languaged languages are a well studied and accepted principle, but only a few (IoC) frameworks besides Tapestry IoC manages to have a framework level support for implementing common ones, such as chain of command, strategy and pipelines.