Hi Bob,
On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Bob Schellink <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Couple of years ago I've answered this question on StackOverflow: > http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2168249/apache-wicket-vs-apache-click > > I think it the answer is still relevant today. One change is that stateful > pages have been deprecated in Click. Instead the notion of stateful > components was added. > We've found that stateful pages wasn't a good fit in Click. As can be > expected the conceptual model between a stateful and stateless page is > vast, almost like > coding in two different frameworks which is bad for maintenance. Stateful > components seems a better fit as one has fine control over what and when to > store state. > Where I can read more about how stateful components work ? Since the page is not stored how a following http request finds the stateful component ? Where the component is stored ? Or maybe just its state is preserved at the client (cookie, request parameter, ...) ? I'll be thankful if you send me a link to a document or even to the code dealing with this logic. > > I believe Click would be easier to learn and get going. With Wicket one > should be able to create more complicated UI's as all state is preserved. > Looking at the click-examples > should give a good idea of the type of applications one would normally > write with Click. As you can see it very web like, instead of desktop like. > > Hope this helps. > > Kind regards > > Bob > > > On 2013/09/10 22:40, Daniel Ford wrote: > > Hi, > > I noticed the mail about stopping development on Click. > > Can someone of you compare Click with Apache > Wicket<http://wicket.apache.org/>? > If you have experience with both frameworks I'll be glad to hear what you > believe Click does better than Wicket and what is better in Wicket. > > Thank you in advance! > > Daniel > > >
