Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
I am using EJB 3.0. So easy to work with. Toplink, GlassFish do everything. The ORM creates my tables from POJOs, transactions are a no-brainer. Comes with NetBeans out of the box. Why don't more users write about it? Most of the time is spent on coding web pages (messy due to browser bugs and high user demands). Wicket is fun and easy. Business logic and all the persistence stuff are not issues that occupy my mind. What do you think about that? Bernard On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:40:19 -0700, you wrote: >Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is >Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. >In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > >I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your >objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still >not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in >Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically >see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be >missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml >files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of >Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > >Dane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
I agree that Wicket, although it's really 'only' a view framework, could do with a couple of straightforward examples in this area, because: - A view framework without any persistence going on isn't typically very useful; - It's important, if only to learn where, how and with what to hook into various server/session/request/... lifecycle stages correctly; - Wicket should be as easy as possible to get into, and this is rather a major point, I should think; - Spring, while very useful, is just a wee bit beside the point sometimes, and you're better off using it _after_ you understand what's going on anyway. (Besides, how else could you tell if it would useful to begin with?) Cheers, Erik On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 11:23 PM, Dane Laverty wrote: > There we go, that's the kind of information I was looking for! Thanks John. > What got me started with Spring initially was its JDBC templates, but then > everything I read basically said, "Yeah, Spring has JDBC templates, but you > won't really need them since you should be using ORM instead." However, when > I went to find some Hibernate/Wicket examples, all the ones I found were > based in a Spring DI framework. So here I am. I'm sure it will be worth it > in the end, but at the moment it's a lot of reading and testing without > feeling like I'm being especially awesome. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
There we go, that's the kind of information I was looking for! Thanks John. What got me started with Spring initially was its JDBC templates, but then everything I read basically said, "Yeah, Spring has JDBC templates, but you won't really need them since you should be using ORM instead." However, when I went to find some Hibernate/Wicket examples, all the ones I found were based in a Spring DI framework. So here I am. I'm sure it will be worth it in the end, but at the moment it's a lot of reading and testing without feeling like I'm being especially awesome. Dane On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 1:32 PM, John Krasnay wrote: > Wow, this post generated a short burst of heat but not much light! > > I think the problem is your question conflates dependency injection, > XML-based configuration, and the Spring framework. IMHO you have to > consider these separately to understand their relative merits. > > Dependency injection is simply that if object A requires object B, it > can assume that it will be given an instance of object B rather than > having to "look up" an instance of object B. This has some very important > advantages: > > - it makes for cleaner code, since you don't have to code the lookup. > > - it makes your code independent of any particular lookup approach. You > can change how your business layer is wired together without changing > all of your code. This is particularly important when trying to create > libraries to be re-used in different applications. > > - it makes your code easier to test, since your test code can manually > inject stub objects and mocks. > > So for me, DI is a big win, regardless of how you do it (Spring, Guice, > or even code in your app startup that instantiates the objects and wires > them together). > > I don't find the Spring XML configuration to be that much of a problem, > since most of the apps I work on have no more than a few dozen object > configured there. One thing I like about it, as opposed to some > annotation-based approaches, is that it's external to the objects > themselves, making the objects more flexible. For example, suppose you > had a WidgetDAO that worked with a DataSource. With the Spring XML you > could easily create two different WidgetDAO instances each pointing to a > different datasource. This would not be so easy with an annotation-based > approach. > > As for the Spring framework itself, I find it contains a whole bunch of > functionality that I normally need in a business app, such as > declarative transaction management, AOP (e.g. for logging), and sane > wrappers around JDBC, JavaMail, and other difficult APIs. If you're not > using Spring, you usually have to figure out other ways to do these > things. > > Hope this helps. > > jk > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:40:19PM -0700, Dane Laverty wrote: > > Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is > > Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using > Spring. > > In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > > > > I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your > > objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm > still > > not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in > > Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will > automatically > > see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be > > missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml > > files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of > > Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > > > > Dane > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
Wow, this post generated a short burst of heat but not much light! I think the problem is your question conflates dependency injection, XML-based configuration, and the Spring framework. IMHO you have to consider these separately to understand their relative merits. Dependency injection is simply that if object A requires object B, it can assume that it will be given an instance of object B rather than having to "look up" an instance of object B. This has some very important advantages: - it makes for cleaner code, since you don't have to code the lookup. - it makes your code independent of any particular lookup approach. You can change how your business layer is wired together without changing all of your code. This is particularly important when trying to create libraries to be re-used in different applications. - it makes your code easier to test, since your test code can manually inject stub objects and mocks. So for me, DI is a big win, regardless of how you do it (Spring, Guice, or even code in your app startup that instantiates the objects and wires them together). I don't find the Spring XML configuration to be that much of a problem, since most of the apps I work on have no more than a few dozen object configured there. One thing I like about it, as opposed to some annotation-based approaches, is that it's external to the objects themselves, making the objects more flexible. For example, suppose you had a WidgetDAO that worked with a DataSource. With the Spring XML you could easily create two different WidgetDAO instances each pointing to a different datasource. This would not be so easy with an annotation-based approach. As for the Spring framework itself, I find it contains a whole bunch of functionality that I normally need in a business app, such as declarative transaction management, AOP (e.g. for logging), and sane wrappers around JDBC, JavaMail, and other difficult APIs. If you're not using Spring, you usually have to figure out other ways to do these things. Hope this helps. jk On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 06:40:19PM -0700, Dane Laverty wrote: > Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is > Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. > In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > > I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your > objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still > not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in > Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically > see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be > missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml > files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of > Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > > Dane - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
RE: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Dane Laverty wrote: > > Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is > > Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. > > In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > > > > I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your > > objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still > > not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in > > Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically > > see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be > > missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml > > files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of > > Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > > > > Dane Personally, I have found Spring to be very beneficial and pretty easy to learn. I really don't mind xml and as a framework it does offer a lot of nice features that are really easy to tie into your application. Spring has very well written documentation that I found very easy to follow. I really like the message driven beans, helper classes for stuff like Hibernate and IBatis, Email is SUPER easy, Cron scheduling is cake and if you need MVC, theirs is well written and easy to use. Aceigi integration with Spring is very nice - switching http/https is easy and you can apply very fine grained access control (though these docs aren't very fun to read.) I'm new to Wicket, but we've used Spring to configure our service layer and made use of annotations so that our XML file isn't all that big. You don't need to use Spring, but once you start to use it, you may find at least some features are really cool. Russ _ Windows Live™ SkyDrive™: Store, access, and share your photos. See how. http://windowslive.com/Online/SkyDrive?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_CS_SD_photos_072009
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
I will vote NO. Why? Because YAGNI. ** Martin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
For automated classpath scanning, with limited XML, see http://wicketinaction.com/2009/06/wicketspringhibernate-configuration/ Martijn On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Dane Laverty wrote: > Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is > Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. > In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > > I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your > objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still > not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in > Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically > see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be > missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml > files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of > Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > > Dane > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
Spring gives flexibility in your services layer (whatever you call it). Making things transactional, adding memoization, talking to remote interfaces, configuring Hibernate and JMX beans, all that kind of stuff is easy with Spring and often unbelievably hard without. As said, Spring has no value in a Wicket application with the exception of calling out to the service layer. This is where the @SpringBean comes in handy. Regards, Erik. On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:40:19 -0700, Dane Laverty wrote: > Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is > Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. > In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > > I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your > objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm > still > not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in > Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically > see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be > missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml > files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of > Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > > Dane -- Erik van Oosten http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
Hi, If you don't want to use xml you can configure your beans in pure Java. See "Spring Java Configuration Project": http://www.springsource.org/javaconfig -- Daniel On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 3:40 AM, Dane Laverty wrote: > Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is > Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. > In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > > I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your > objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still > not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in > Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically > see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be > missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml > files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of > Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > > Dane > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
> I wasn't saying that's the only other way - just unfortunately the one > a lot choose. I'll give you that. :-) - Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:42 PM, Jason Wang wrote:
> You dont have to use spring with wicket. Spring is a business layer
> framework essentially. It gives you so much convenience to decouple
> services from its clients. I tried to use it to manage all the web
> components, then I realized that doesnt give me much at all. Sometimes, a
> simple "new Page("id")" is just a better solution.
This is a very important point. We occasionally get questions on how
to use factory patterns for components. It's simply not worth it.
Spring is for your middle-tier (and down) - not web.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 10:45 PM, Stephen Haberman wrote: > OO has a nice way of dealing with switch statements: polymorphism. Yeah - but all the apps I've seen where I was consulting that didn't use Spring had a ton of switch statements to create all of their services / db connections / etc... I wasn't saying that's the only other way - just unfortunately the one a lot choose. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
> Better than hard-coding a bunch of big switch statements. OO has a nice way of dealing with switch statements: polymorphism. If you know the environments up-front, you can define an interface and have each environment class implement it. Though, if you're defining environments on the fly, then, yeah, that becomes harder. Lack of abstraction is generally what plauges anything XML though--look at ant. - Stephen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
Dane Laverty wrote:
Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is
Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring.
In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring.
I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your
objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still
not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in
Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically
see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be
missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml
files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of
Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications?
Dane
You dont have to use spring with wicket. Spring is a business layer
framework essentially. It gives you so much convenience to decouple
services from its clients. I tried to use it to manage all the web
components, then I realized that doesnt give me much at all. Sometimes,
a simple "new Page("id")" is just a better solution.
But I do encourage you to learn spring, especially if you value
automated tests. I cannot live with it now.
Jas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
I use it to deploy the same Wicket application to a dozen different sites. Each of them has their own configuration / some with different services, etc. Better than hard-coding a bunch of big switch statements. The same applies for loading dev / staging / production configuration. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Wed, Jul 22, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Dane Laverty wrote: > Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is > Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. > In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. > > I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your > objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still > not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in > Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically > see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be > missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml > files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of > Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? > > Dane > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Spring and Wicket - is it worth it?
Due to the fact that nearly every substantial sample Wicket app is Spring-based, I imagine that there's something awesome about using Spring. In fact, Wicket is what has finally gotten me to start learning Spring. I think I understand the basics of dependency injection -- configure your objects in xml files and then inject them into your classes -- but I'm still not clear on the advantage of it. I've read quite a ways into "Spring in Action", and the author seems to assume that the reader will automatically see why xml-based dependency injection is great thing. I must just be missing something here. What I love about Wicket is being free from xml files. Can anyone give me a concise explanation of how the advantages of Spring are worth introducing a new layer into my applications? Dane
