@Bob - Thanks for the links! I'm not sold on this approach. It is way too manual for my taste.
@Dennis - I see what you meant with "less HTML to write". Looking at http://click.avoka.com/click-examples/source-viewer.htm?filename=WEB-INF/classes/org/apache/click/examples/page/table/SearchTablePage.javaone can see code like: editLink.setImageSrc("/assets/images/table-edit.png"); editLink.setTitle("Edit customer details"); editLink.setParameter("referrer", "/table/search-table.htm"); so you write your HTML in the Java file ... Not sold again. On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Bob Schellink <[email protected]> wrote: > There isn't much doco except for the javadoc: > > http://click.apache.org/docs/click-api/org/apache/click/Stateful.html > > > Here is an example: > http://click.avoka.com/click-examples/table/search-table.htm > > It is very basic and light-weight. A control can store and restore it's > state in the session. You could look at Table and ClickUtils on how it's > done. > > regards > > Bob > > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 1:46 PM, Daniel Ford <[email protected] > > wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >
