Matt Raible's ApacheCon presentation

[Sean Sullivan-3]

fyi

http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/comparing_jvm_web_frameworks_presentation

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[mraible]

FWIW, I'd like to replace the pros and cons (my opinions) with some that are more accurate. As users of Wicket, I'd love to hear from you and get your opinions on the top 3 pros and cons of Wicket.

Here's the ones I currently have:

Pros:

* Great for Java developers, not web developers
* Tight binding between pages and views
* Active community - support from the creators

Cons:

* HTML templates live next to Java code
* Need to have a good grasp of OO
* The Wicket Way - everything done in Java

IMO, there's no need to debate whether these are valid or not. If they're not - please suggest new ones. James Ward of Flex had a nice and honest comment this morning pointing out Flex's cons:

http://tinyurl.com/yvybnm

Thanks,

Matt

Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:

fyi

http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/comparing_jvm_web_frameworks_presentation

[igor.vaynberg]

> * HTML templates live next to Java code
this is easily changed - just a default

> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
why is this a con? you are saying not knowing oo is a good thing? you
can say this is a pro - learning wicket will make you a better
developer :)

> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
as opposed to embedding logic in views which has been something
plaguing other frameworks for ages?

-igor

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Scott Swank]

You're complaining that 2 out of 3 "Cons" aren't necessarily negative?  :)

I would re-state the first of them to read that "By default HTML
templates live next to Java code".  Is there a better way to state the
2nd Pro?

On Nov 15, 2007 11:43 AM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynberg@...> wrote:

> > * HTML templates live next to Java code
> this is easily changed - just a default
>
> > * Need to have a good grasp of OO
> why is this a con? you are saying not knowing oo is a good thing? you
> can say this is a pro - learning wicket will make you a better
> developer :)
>
> > * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
> as opposed to embedding logic in views which has been something
> plaguing other frameworks for ages?
>
> -igor
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>
>

--
Scott Swank
reformed mathematician

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[mraible]

I didn't say my cons were valid - but I do believe there *are* cons to Wicket. What are they - in your opinion?

matt

igor.vaynberg wrote:

> * HTML templates live next to Java code
this is easily changed - just a default

> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
why is this a con? you are saying not knowing oo is a good thing? you
can say this is a pro - learning wicket will make you a better
developer :)

> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
as opposed to embedding logic in views which has been something
plaguing other frameworks for ages?

-igor

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

[igor.vaynberg]

for me, pros would be:

trully object oriented: allows great encapsulation/extension/reuse
code centric: easier refactoring, maintenance
trivial component creation: awesome reuse of high level functionality
inter/intra projects

but then again i am one of those "hardcore" java developers who
understands OO... saying a java webframework is hard to use because
its built with java seems silly to me...

cons:

no default native (httpsessionbased) failover cluster strategy yet -
coming in 1.4 right matej? by default failover only works if the user
does not press the backbutton right after failover event

stateful/stateless support right now is not as nice as it could be -
stateless component tree is pretty much a limited/parallel hierarchy
of the stateful tree - that means you cannot have bookmarkable/pretty
urls for complex pages

cant think of any more right now - will think about it some more
through the rest of the day

-igor






-igor


On Nov 15, 2007 11:46 AM, Scott Swank <scott.swank@...> wrote:

> You're complaining that 2 out of 3 "Cons" aren't necessarily negative?  :)
>
> I would re-state the first of them to read that "By default HTML
> templates live next to Java code".  Is there a better way to state the
> 2nd Pro?
>
>
> On Nov 15, 2007 11:43 AM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynberg@...> wrote:
> > > * HTML templates live next to Java code
> > this is easily changed - just a default
> >
> > > * Need to have a good grasp of OO
> > why is this a con? you are saying not knowing oo is a good thing? you
> > can say this is a pro - learning wicket will make you a better
> > developer :)
> >
> > > * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
> > as opposed to embedding logic in views which has been something
> > plaguing other frameworks for ages?
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Scott Swank
> reformed mathematician
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Martijn Dashorst]

Pros:
* elegant solutions to problems using object oriented programming are
possible again
* unspoiled (by model2 framework) graduates can create complex UI's
almost instantly
* you actually need to engage your brain at times
* custom component creation is *really* easy: just use extends (tm)

Cons:
* single threaded model for responding to client actions: a lot is
sync'd on the pagemap
* you actually need to engage your brain at times
* getting to know the internals can be quite challenging as it is a
complex beast
* too easy to create complex UI's that show the world and then some
* sometimes the limitations of HTML/the web leak into the wicket
world, making it tougher for new web developers as they are presented
with quite an abstraction (keeping state in forms across requests in
tabbed panels)

Martijn

On 11/15/07, mraible <matt@...> wrote:

>
> FWIW, I'd like to replace the pros and cons (my opinions) with some that are
> more accurate. As users of Wicket, I'd love to hear from you and get your
> opinions on the top 3 pros and cons of Wicket.
>
> Here's the ones I currently have:
>
> Pros:
>
> * Great for Java developers, not web developers
> * Tight binding between pages and views
> * Active community - support from the creators
>
> Cons:
>
> * HTML templates live next to Java code
> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
>
> IMO, there's no need to debate whether these are valid or not. If they're
> not - please suggest new ones. James Ward of Flex had a nice and honest
> comment this morning pointing out Flex's cons:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yvybnm
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:
> >
> > fyi
> >
> > http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/comparing_jvm_web_frameworks_presentation
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Matt-Raible%27s-ApacheCon-presentation-tf4815955.html#a13780071
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>
>

--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-rc1 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-rc1/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Nick Heudecker]

In my opinion, Wicket's cons evolve over time, as your experience with the
framework increases.  An early con I ran into was simply the size of the
framework - Wicket has a large API.  Once I understood where things were and
how they were structured, the size of the framework wasn't a problem.

Coming from a heavy Struts background, I was a little surprised to find
myself so insulated from the servlet APIs.  You still have access if you
need it, but you rarely do.  Not really a con, more of a function of how
Wicket works.  (One side effect of not needing access to the servlet API is
applications feel less like a collection of hacks and more like
engineering.)

Understanding models and state within Wicket also took some time, but I
think that's mostly because of how much Struts development I suffered
through.  Had I done any Swing development, I'm sure getting my head around
models would've been easier.

Now that I've used Wicket for a while, one problem I run into is not quite
being able to customize things like I'd wish without duplicating existing
framework code.  However, the developers are pretty good about entertaining
my (often inane) requests.

Your comment about needing a good grasp of OOP makes sense in only one
regard - it's harder to find great talent.  Being able to flex some
development muscle results in tighter code, more reuse and it's much more
fun.

Honestly, I don't find many cons when developing with Wicket.  What you
might call cons I call framework inexperience.



On Nov 15, 2007 1:56 PM, mraible <matt@...> wrote:

>
> I didn't say my cons were valid - but I do believe there *are* cons to
> Wicket. What are they - in your opinion?
>
> matt
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
> >
> >> * HTML templates live next to Java code
> > this is easily changed - just a default
> >
> >> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
> > why is this a con? you are saying not knowing oo is a good thing? you
> > can say this is a pro - learning wicket will make you a better
> > developer :)
> >
> >> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
> > as opposed to embedding logic in views which has been something
> > plaguing other frameworks for ages?
> >
> > -igor
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Matt-Raible%27s-ApacheCon-presentation-tf4815955.html#a13780519
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>
>

--
Nick Heudecker
Professional Wicket Training & Consulting
http://www.systemmobile.com

Eventful - Intelligent Event Management
http://www.eventfulhq.com

[whoover]

I think that the html code residing next to the java code is a lot more natural than the traditional schema and would be a pro. We are always resistant to change, but in some cases change is good thing. If they go hand-in-hand why would you not want to keep them together?

I hope you have a good grasp on OO if your programming in this day and age and that would also be a pro!

The last con is also a pro! Java is intended to handle logic- html is not! Placing the logic within the view (as the case with JSP/JSF) isn't very MVC like as they claim to be (more like MC ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: mraible [mailto:matt@...]
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2007 2:35 PM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: Matt Raible's ApacheCon presentation



FWIW, I'd like to replace the pros and cons (my opinions) with some that are
more accurate. As users of Wicket, I'd love to hear from you and get your
opinions on the top 3 pros and cons of Wicket.

Here's the ones I currently have:

Pros:

* Great for Java developers, not web developers
* Tight binding between pages and views
* Active community - support from the creators

Cons:

* HTML templates live next to Java code
* Need to have a good grasp of OO
* The Wicket Way - everything done in Java

IMO, there's no need to debate whether these are valid or not. If they're
not - please suggest new ones. James Ward of Flex had a nice and honest
comment this morning pointing out Flex's cons:

http://tinyurl.com/yvybnm

Thanks,

Matt


Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:
>
> fyi
>
> http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/comparing_jvm_web_frameworks_presentation
>

--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Matt-Raible%27s-ApacheCon-presentation-tf4815955.html#a13780071
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[John Krasnay]

On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 11:35:02AM -0800, mraible wrote:
>
> Pros:
>
> * Great for Java developers, not web developers

Not sure here who you mean by "web developers". If you mean HTML
slingers I would think the absence of taglibs and logic in the templates
would be an advantage.

> * Tight binding between pages and views

Not sure what this means either, but it sounds bad!

The biggest pros for me are as follows:

* Easy to build re-usable components
* Components can be packaged as simple JARs

> Cons:
>
> * HTML templates live next to Java code

I think this is a pro. Not only does it encourage logical organization
(just like Java source in directories and files named after the class
names), but it is key to being able to package components into JARs.

> * Need to have a good grasp of OO

To me this is the biggest con. I've worked with a number of Java devs
who have trouble grokking anonymous inner classes, which you must know
cold to be effective with Wicket.

> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java

...as opposed to some things in Java, some things with taglibs,
some things with Velocity/FreeMarker control structures, and the rest in
XML? Sure sounds like a pro to me.

jk

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Gwyn]

I think that I'd have to say that the main cons are:-

  (a) It does demand a certain level of OO coding, in terms of being
happy to override classes & typically to be able to create anonymous
classes - not a huge amount, but coders grounded in procedural code
will feel lost.

  (b) The documention is scattered - partly because there are so many
ways that it can go beyond the basic web-page (i.e. page inheritance,
panels/fragments, embeded forms, built-in AJAX, security, etc,) that
not much short of an encylopedia could do it justice!

/Gwyn

On 15/11/2007, mraible <matt@...> wrote:

>
> I didn't say my cons were valid - but I do believe there *are* cons to
> Wicket. What are they - in your opinion?
>
> matt
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
> >
> >> * HTML templates live next to Java code
> > this is easily changed - just a default
> >
> >> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
> > why is this a con? you are saying not knowing oo is a good thing? you
> > can say this is a pro - learning wicket will make you a better
> > developer :)
> >
> >> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
> > as opposed to embedding logic in views which has been something
> > plaguing other frameworks for ages?
> >
> > -igor
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Matt-Raible%27s-ApacheCon-presentation-tf4815955.html#a13780519
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>
>

--
Download Wicket 1.3.0-rc1 now! - http://wicketframework.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Michael Laccetti]

John Krasnay wrote:
> To me this is the biggest con. I've worked with a number of Java devs
> who have trouble grokking anonymous inner classes, which you must know
> cold to be effective with Wicket.

Quite a con indeed.  Wicket is not a framework that most people new to Java/OO can easily jump into and start churning out apps with.  This ties together with the concept of models, and figuring out which is the right for the situation.  There is no easy answer, it is more of an instinctive "feel" that you get over time.

It is inherently worse for people that were Struts devs.  It took me a while to unlearn my view of the world.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Eelco Hillenius]

> no default native (httpsessionbased) failover cluster strategy yet -
> coming in 1.4 right matej? by default failover only works if the user
> does not press the backbutton right after failover event

We have to decide how to best wrap this in projects etc, but the
cluster code worked well when I tested it with Teachscape.


Eelco

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Eelco Hillenius]

On Nov 15, 2007 12:27 PM, Gwyn Evans <gwyn.evans@...> wrote:
> I think that I'd have to say that the main cons are:-
>
>   (a) It does demand a certain level of OO coding, in terms of being
> happy to override classes & typically to be able to create anonymous
> classes - not a huge amount, but coders grounded in procedural code
> will feel lost.

I'm in the camp who doesn't think that is an example. In fact, the big
pro of this is that you'll have your developers practice more with OO
so Wicket might even make them better coders.

It seems to be very specific for the Java (and possibly .NET) crowd as
well. I don't think ErlyWeb to name one gets criticized for requiring
it's users to know Erlang.

>   (b) The documention is scattered - partly because there are so many
> ways that it can go beyond the basic web-page (i.e. page inheritance,
> panels/fragments, embeded forms, built-in AJAX, security, etc,) that
> not much short of an encylopedia could do it justice!

Documentation will always be something that can be improved. What's
new? Even with projects like Hibernate it is sometimes hard to find
exactly what you want, and about 90% of open source projects hardly
have any documentation.

Anyway, it would be great to have a single tutorial that stands out
from the rest of the web site to get people going. Someone just has to
pick this up again and feel responsible for it. Also, the fact that
Martijn and I are writing Wicket In Action is to provide more
documentation. So we are working on improving it.

Eelco

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Eelco Hillenius]

On Nov 15, 2007 12:48 PM, Eelco Hillenius <eelco.hillenius@...> wrote:
> On Nov 15, 2007 12:27 PM, Gwyn Evans <gwyn.evans@...> wrote:
> > I think that I'd have to say that the main cons are:-
> >
> >   (a) It does demand a certain level of OO coding, in terms of being
> > happy to override classes & typically to be able to create anonymous
> > classes - not a huge amount, but coders grounded in procedural code
> > will feel lost.
>
> I'm in the camp who doesn't think that is an example.

Ugh. I meant disadvantage, not 'example'.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[jWeekend]

Matt,

This looks like it will be an interesting presentation.
For me, Wicket is the main reason I decided I'm happy to do a bit of Web development. You can build applications that give you the satisfaction of being well designed and engineered, especially if you believe that OO is good.
A big plus for many people is the total lack of xml (apart from the obligatory web.xml, of course). You get all the benefits of an OO, strongly typed language and the fantastic power of the IDEs available today when you use java to define how your application behaves.
Wicket let's you design and build good web applications the way you want to. In essence, you are building just another plain old java application (POJA ?) and you can use all the tools and techniques that you already know make sense for the class of software you are building.
The integration with mainstream middle-tier frameworks like Spring, Guice, Hibernate, Acegi etc make it a breeze to develop using what you have already decided makes good system development a better experience.
Everything I have tried just works. I would never have thought that adding Ajax to a web app could be made to be so easy. And, on top of that, there are excellent contributions that allow very easy and robust integration with the likes of Google Maps, Prototype, Dojo and other useful client-side libraries.
Custom components are an essential fact of life in real world systems. I cannot imagine how Wicket could be bettered on this front.
The total separation of the view (html, css) from the display logic/mode makes perfect sense to me too. If you fancy yourself as an html/css artist, go ahead and make a good-looking/feeling app. If not, give the html/css work to someone who knows what to do with html/css and they won't need to learn anything else.
Everyone I know that has used Wicket seems to think it's incredibly clever, useful and a joy to work with.
I must admit that I am a big believer in the benefits of OO, so the Wicket development effort seemed much more natural to me than the few other frameworks that I spent a very limited time with.
I have no doubt that some of these other frameworks have very good features, but having started using Wicket, everything else seems like a step in the wrong direction or at the very least, a lot harder to do what you feel is right with. On the other hand, I don't feel I have quite enough experience with them to make any strong statements.
I am lucky to work with Java 5. This goes well with Wicket, even though it is still 1.4 compliant. I am looking forward to the next version, ported to 1.5, with genericised Wicket Models adding to the quality of the development experience.  
The documentation is not the best, but it seems to be improving all the time and I know for a fact that this will get more attention soon. There are already excellent examples to help you get going and that cover/illustrate pretty much all of Wicket's features.
Finally, don't under-estimate the value of this mailing-list. It is full of very bright and helpful people who will assist with any problem you post about. And, you will usually get this help, and sometimes an interesting, thought provoking and instructional discussion brewing, within minutes.
I hope your presentation goes well.

Regards - Cemal
http://jWeekend.co.uk




I didn't say my cons were valid - but I do believe there *are* cons to Wicket. What are they - in your opinion?

matt

igor.vaynberg wrote:

> * HTML templates live next to Java code
this is easily changed - just a default

> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
why is this a con? you are saying not knowing oo is a good thing? you
can say this is a pro - learning wicket will make you a better
developer :)

> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
as opposed to embedding logic in views which has been something
plaguing other frameworks for ages?

-igor

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

[Eelco Hillenius]

> I didn't say my cons were valid - but I do believe there *are* cons to
> Wicket. What are they - in your opinion?

You know what I think the pros are by now. I don't always feel the
same about the cons we currently have, but currently they would be:

* Ajax support is a compromise. We can't really help this, and I feel
we did/ are doing the best we can, but our Ajax support suffers from
the fact that we're trying to support both a traditional (page based)
and ajax approach. Particularly, back button support, bookmarkability
and asynchronous server handling suffers. Some of this might still be
improved in future versions, but I think we're already easily one of
the most complex web frameworks out there when it comes to the
internals, and these fixes are only gonna make things more difficult.

* No Hybrid approach to state handling. I know many team members
disagree here, but I've always had in my mind that the perfect
approach to state handling would be to give users the choice between
server managed and client managed (i.e. by passing parameters/ rest)
on a component level. To our defense, none of our competitors support
this either, at least not on the component level I am envisioning.

* Java. I'm getting tired of Java's limitations and plain inelegance
in some areas and how this sometimes makes Wicket verbose and even
inflexible. I'm starting to get very interested in languages like
Haskell, Erlang and Scala. Maybe it's just a phase I'm going through,
and I'm sure that people who hate anonymous classes would hate FP even
more ;-)

Eelco

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[Alexis]

Pros :
* Statefull
* Steady features (simple Ajax built-in, validation, ...)
* Can do simple stuff quickly without knowing the internals (good for java developpers without web experiences)

Cons :
* Not stateless (i'm talking about the stable 1.2 here)
* Too much alternatives to do quite the same things (markup inheritance vs borders; passing component's constructors models, full objects or even components; ListView vs DataView vs GridView ...)
* TOO MUCH JAVA and too component oriented: in fact on some pages you need to create some components (panels, fragment, or inner classes) to write maintenable code whereas these components will never be reused elsewhere. In general you need some effort and focus to produce maintenable code on not so complex pages / components, this is my biggest con.

Martijn Dashorst wrote:

Pros:
* elegant solutions to problems using object oriented programming are
possible again
* unspoiled (by model2 framework) graduates can create complex UI's
almost instantly
* you actually need to engage your brain at times
* custom component creation is *really* easy: just use extends (tm)

Cons:
* single threaded model for responding to client actions: a lot is
sync'd on the pagemap
* you actually need to engage your brain at times
* getting to know the internals can be quite challenging as it is a
complex beast
* too easy to create complex UI's that show the world and then some
* sometimes the limitations of HTML/the web leak into the wicket
world, making it tougher for new web developers as they are presented
with quite an abstraction (keeping state in forms across requests in
tabbed panels)

Martijn

On 11/15/07, mraible <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> FWIW, I'd like to replace the pros and cons (my opinions) with some that are
> more accurate. As users of Wicket, I'd love to hear from you and get your
> opinions on the top 3 pros and cons of Wicket.
>
> Here's the ones I currently have:
>
> Pros:
>
> * Great for Java developers, not web developers
> * Tight binding between pages and views
> * Active community - support from the creators
>
> Cons:
>
> * HTML templates live next to Java code
> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
>
> IMO, there's no need to debate whether these are valid or not. If they're
> not - please suggest new ones. James Ward of Flex had a nice and honest
> comment this morning pointing out Flex's cons:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yvybnm
>
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
>
> Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:
> >
> > fyi
> >
> > http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/comparing_jvm_web_frameworks_presentation
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Matt-Raible%27s-ApacheCon-presentation-tf4815955.html#a13780071
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [e-mail]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [e-mail]
>
>


--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-rc1 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-rc1/

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

[igor.vaynberg]

On Nov 15, 2007 3:02 PM, Alexis <alexis.tual@...> wrote:
> * TOO MUCH JAVA and too component oriented: in fact on some pages you need
> to create some components (panels, fragment, or inner classes) to write
> maintenable code whereas these components will never be reused elsewhere. In
> general you need some effort and focus to produce maintenable code on not so
> complex pages / components, this is my biggest con.

you can always override render() and spit html directly into
servletresponse as a string... :)

-igor

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

[WeaZeLb0y]

I agree with the "Too much java" statement.  Sometimes you have to
create a bunch of stuff that would be a lot easier to do in a velocity
template. It only takes a couple of seconds more to do it, but it just
makes everything 'seem' bigger.


Example would be a link on a table...


                columns.add(new LinkPropertyColumn(new Model("Delivery"), new Model(
                                "change")) {
                        @Override
                        public Link createLink(final Item item, String componentId,
                                        final IModel model) {
                                return new Link(componentId) {
                                        @Override
                                        public void onClick() {
                                                ReportStatistic reportStatistic = (ReportStatistic) model
                                                                .getObject();
                                                DraftProduct draft = productService
                                                                .getDraftProduct(reportStatistic.getReportId());
                                                setResponsePage(new ReportDelivery(draft));
                                        }
                                };
                        }
                });


On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 15:02 -0800, Alexis wrote:

> Pros :
> * Statefull
> * Steady features (simple Ajax built-in, validation, ...)
> * Can do simple stuff quickly without knowing the internals (good for java
> developpers without web experiences)
>
> Cons :
> * Not stateless (i'm talking about the stable 1.2 here)
> * Too much alternatives to do quite the same things (markup inheritance vs
> borders; passing component's constructors models, full objects or even
> components; ListView vs DataView vs GridView ...)
> * TOO MUCH JAVA and too component oriented: in fact on some pages you need
> to create some components (panels, fragment, or inner classes) to write
> maintenable code whereas these components will never be reused elsewhere. In
> general you need some effort and focus to produce maintenable code on not so
> complex pages / components, this is my biggest con.
>
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >
> > Pros:
> > * elegant solutions to problems using object oriented programming are
> > possible again
> > * unspoiled (by model2 framework) graduates can create complex UI's
> > almost instantly
> > * you actually need to engage your brain at times
> > * custom component creation is *really* easy: just use extends (tm)
> >
> > Cons:
> > * single threaded model for responding to client actions: a lot is
> > sync'd on the pagemap
> > * you actually need to engage your brain at times
> > * getting to know the internals can be quite challenging as it is a
> > complex beast
> > * too easy to create complex UI's that show the world and then some
> > * sometimes the limitations of HTML/the web leak into the wicket
> > world, making it tougher for new web developers as they are presented
> > with quite an abstraction (keeping state in forms across requests in
> > tabbed panels)
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 11/15/07, mraible <matt@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> FWIW, I'd like to replace the pros and cons (my opinions) with some that
> >> are
> >> more accurate. As users of Wicket, I'd love to hear from you and get your
> >> opinions on the top 3 pros and cons of Wicket.
> >>
> >> Here's the ones I currently have:
> >>
> >> Pros:
> >>
> >> * Great for Java developers, not web developers
> >> * Tight binding between pages and views
> >> * Active community - support from the creators
> >>
> >> Cons:
> >>
> >> * HTML templates live next to Java code
> >> * Need to have a good grasp of OO
> >> * The Wicket Way - everything done in Java
> >>
> >> IMO, there's no need to debate whether these are valid or not. If they're
> >> not - please suggest new ones. James Ward of Flex had a nice and honest
> >> comment this morning pointing out Flex's cons:
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/yvybnm
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Matt
> >>
> >>
> >> Sean Sullivan-3 wrote:
> >> >
> >> > fyi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/comparing_jvm_web_frameworks_presentation
> >> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> View this message in context:
> >> http://www.nabble.com/Matt-Raible%27s-ApacheCon-presentation-tf4815955.html#a13780071
> >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >>
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-rc1 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-rc1/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
> >
> >
> >
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...