Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Also, it seems like a lot of swing developers wish they had something like wicket, where they can do the form layout/design in xml and then do the complicated bits in java. I think that although that isn't exactly what F3 is, that's why people are excited by it. i wouldn't like that, why would i place the structure of the ui in xml code generation in that area is fine especially when you have a gui builder that works both ways. So you could tweak it by hand and you just see that directly in the ui builder. johan - This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/___ Wicket-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
On Thursday, 12 April 2007 02:40 am, Chris Colman escreveu: Thanks, Igor, for taking the effort to answer my question. I so understand that one of the core vision statements is separation of concerns. I am evaluating Click but haven't ruled out Wicket - just that some aspects of Click seem less cumbersome because separation of concerns is not a priority there - Click seems to suit what I need better than what Eelco had suggested much earier: Echo. This is interesting because I'm traveling in the exact opposite direction: I've been using Echo for more than a year for the highly interactive parts of the site where users enter data - we will continue to do this in the foreseeable future. However, the presentation of that data in read only views (pages) is also extremely important and it is desirable to provide that presentation in a wide variety of formats and styles so we use Wicket for this and override the getVariation() method in our pages and panels to support this feature. So we have a kind of 'hybrid' web app: Echo+Wicket. I've ended up appreciating the ability to drive layout and style changes and variations via separate (HTML) markup a lot more since we started using Wicket. We no longer have to change a Java class then recompile, run, test to see how the change looks. We just edit the HTML markup in a WYSIWYG HTML editor getting it to look how we want (with liberal use of wicket:remove tags) and when done we just Save and then hit refresh in the browser - the changes are visible right away in our web app when wicket regenerates the page using the latest markup. Also, it seems like a lot of swing developers wish they had something like wicket, where they can do the form layout/design in xml and then do the complicated bits in java. I think that although that isn't exactly what F3 is, that's why people are excited by it. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Exactly Igor, thats why I prever wicket over any other framework. I absolutely hate html generators or frameworks that generate there own html. I want freedom, not only because i'm a controlfreak but mostly because I know that using a framework that generates html in the end only leads to horrible RFC's that want tiny changes that are slightly out of scope of the framework's API. IMO the whole power of wicket comes from the facts that it really is just an open framework and not a border that you don't want to cross. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Thanks, Igor, for taking the effort to answer my question. I so understand that one of the core vision statements is separation of concerns. I am evaluating Click but haven't ruled out Wicket - just that some aspects of Click seem less cumbersome because separation of concerns is not a priority there - Click seems to suit what I need better than what Eelco had suggested much earier: Echo. This is interesting because I'm traveling in the exact opposite direction: I've been using Echo for more than a year for the highly interactive parts of the site where users enter data - we will continue to do this in the foreseeable future. However, the presentation of that data in read only views (pages) is also extremely important and it is desirable to provide that presentation in a wide variety of formats and styles so we use Wicket for this and override the getVariation() method in our pages and panels to support this feature. So we have a kind of 'hybrid' web app: Echo+Wicket. I've ended up appreciating the ability to drive layout and style changes and variations via separate (HTML) markup a lot more since we started using Wicket. We no longer have to change a Java class then recompile, run, test to see how the change looks. We just edit the HTML markup in a WYSIWYG HTML editor getting it to look how we want (with liberal use of wicket:remove tags) and when done we just Save and then hit refresh in the browser - the changes are visible right away in our web app when wicket regenerates the page using the latest markup. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Hi! On 4/12/07, Philip Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wish that each form or form element element had a default renderer and would render itself without needing to be embedded in some other html file. In my extremely humble opinion, this is a wicket extension feature, not a core wicket feature. Look at DefaultDataTable for an example, I assume a DefaultForm and DefaultPage could be implemented in a similar fashion. Then you could propotype without writing any HTML at all. However, it seems less intuitive to add non-trivial content to a DefaultDataTable than to regular repeaters: you must create panels instead of just extending the markup and the constructor a bit. Szocske - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
On 4/11/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: After 40+ hours of more research, I did indeed find my style of coding - and it clicks. Page-based, ... Another thing I don't agree with is that page-orientation is something to aim for[1]. I believe a mixed model is more powerful[2]. There's a lot more that can be said about the different frameworks, but I think it can be summed up by saying that Click is primarily pragmatic and focussed on simplicity, whereas Wicket is focussed on providing a true OO programming model with clean separation of markup and logic. Imo, there's something to say for both. [1] http://www.nabble.com/Click-Rules%21%21%21-tf3555269.html [2] http://chillenious.wordpress.com/2006/07/16/on-page-navigation/ - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user I wonder if someone here can answer me this question: Why do more and more Java frameworks try to push users farther away from the tried-and-true web experience of having web pages that submit to servers and create other web pages? Everything I see is trying to redefine how websites are developed and frankly I've yet to see a single framework that does this completely and doesn't get in the developer's way. In the end, it's still a web page, and the expectations are there. For example, I want to submit a form, process the data, and redisplay the same page, though with some changes according to what was inputted. I don't know how to do this and I can't find anything in the docs. Why is something so simple, so trivial anywhere else not also trivial here in Wicket? I've never messed with the likes of Echo or GWT, but I can't think that these are any better as they try to abstract even farther by generating Javascript for super-dynamic (read: one-page browser-breaking) applications. Why is this, and where are the modern Java web frameworks that don't try to reinvent the concept of a website? Jason - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
u, this is not trivial? are you kidding?
let me write something up from memory
public class GuestBookPage extends WebPage {
private ListString comments=new ArrayList();
private String latestComment;
public GuestBookPage() {
add(new ListView(comments, new PropertyModel(this, comments) {
protected void populateItem(ListItem item) {
add(new Label(comment, item.getModel()));
}
Form form=new Form(form);
add(form);
form.add(new TextField(comment, new PropertyModel(this,
latestComment)));
form.add(new Button(submit) {
protected void onClick() {
comments.add(latestComment);
}
}
}
}
htmlbodyulli wicket:id=commentsspan
wicket:id=comment/span/li/ul
form wicket:id=forminput wicket:id=comment type=text/input
wicket:id=submit type=submit value=add comment//form/body/html
done
what exactly is so difficult about the above?
-igor
On 4/11/07, Jason Roelofs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/11/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After 40+ hours of more research, I did indeed find my style of
coding - and
it clicks. Page-based, ...
Another thing I don't agree with is that page-orientation is something
to aim for[1]. I believe a mixed model is more powerful[2].
There's a lot more that can be said about the different frameworks,
but I think it can be summed up by saying that Click is primarily
pragmatic and focussed on simplicity, whereas Wicket is focussed on
providing a true OO programming model with clean separation of markup
and logic. Imo, there's something to say for both.
[1] http://www.nabble.com/Click-Rules%21%21%21-tf3555269.html
[2] http://chillenious.wordpress.com/2006/07/16/on-page-navigation/
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
I wonder if someone here can answer me this question: Why do more and more
Java frameworks try to push users farther away from the tried-and-true web
experience of having web pages that submit to servers and create other web
pages? Everything I see is trying to redefine how websites are developed and
frankly I've yet to see a single framework that does this completely and
doesn't get in the developer's way. In the end, it's still a web page, and
the expectations are there. For example, I want to submit a form, process
the data, and redisplay the same page, though with some changes according to
what was inputted. I don't know how to do this and I can't find anything in
the docs. Why is something so simple, so trivial anywhere else not also
trivial here in Wicket?
I've never messed with the likes of Echo or GWT, but I can't think that
these are any better as they try to abstract even farther by generating
Javascript for super-dynamic (read: one-page browser-breaking) applications.
Why is this, and where are the modern Java web frameworks that don't try
to reinvent the concept of a website?
Jason
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Why is this, and where are the modern Java web frameworks that don't try to reinvent the concept of a website? What a framework like Wicket tries to do is provide a programming model that mimics programming like you would do for a desktop UI app. Why? Because the model is much better suited for the kind of applications many users are building nowadays. Of course, if you are really just developing a document oriented web site with just a couple of forms and not much else, this may be overkill. Much like JPA/ Hibernate/ JDO are overkil when you have a simple data model. But you'd be a minority, given the attention 'rich' user interfaces over the web get nowadays. Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
On 4/11/07, Jason Roelofs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if someone here can answer me this question: Why do more and more Java frameworks try to push users farther away from the tried-and-true web experience of having web pages that submit to servers and create other web pages? I'm not sure what prompted this reaction. I can only point at [1] to give you a baseline as to what the goals of Wicket are regarding the programming model. If you don't like the programming model, then you are welcome to suggest improvements, or if you /really/ don't like it pick one you do like. We won't threaten you, or hate you for the choice you make. Everything I see is trying to redefine how websites are developed and frankly I've yet to see a single framework that does this completely and doesn't get in the developer's way. Again I'm not sure what is bothering you. How, where and why is Wicket getting in your way? In the end, it's still a web page, and the expectations are there. For example, I want to submit a form, process the data, and redisplay the same page, though with some changes according to what was inputted. I don't know how to do this and I can't find anything in the docs. Why is something so simple, so trivial anywhere else not also trivial here in Wicket? I am sorry that you are not able to do and find what you want. But asking the right questions in the right tone will get you ahead much better than complaining that you couldn't perform a task so simple. Some things in Wicket require getting used to. One of those things are the Model concept, which is probably the cause of your frustration. I've never messed with the likes of Echo or GWT, but I can't think that these are any better as they try to abstract even farther by generating Javascript for super-dynamic (read: one-page browser-breaking) applications. Neither have I but I think they are filling a niche that needs to be filled. Apparently Google knows how to build a great application using GWT that scales tremendously (though they have the hardware and the bandwidth to support such scale too). Why is this, and where are the modern Java web frameworks that don't try to reinvent the concept of a website? I'm not sure what you mean by reinventing the concept of a website. If you talk about single page, ajax enabled, back button breaking applications... then wicket should fit your bill, as we support all 3 modes: * the usual multi page applications using traditional links (sprinkled with some ajax where it makes sense) * the less usual single page application using traditional links (using panel replacement, not breaking the back button, possibly sprinkled with some ajax), * the full blown single page, ajax enabled, back button breaking (though I think there are some ideas to enable the back button too, Dojo at least has support for that) interface. Wicket requires a more than basic understanding of object orientation: you need to know about the lifecycle of objects: construction (only once), rendering (multiple times), clean up (garbace collection, depending on the pagemap strategy). Once you grok the idea that construction is only done once, and that anything you push into components, will not update, then you're golden. Martijn [1] http://incubator.apache.org/wicket/vision.html -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
On 4/11/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 4/11/07, Jason Roelofs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I wonder if someone here can answer me this question: Why do more and more Java frameworks try to push users farther away from the tried-and-true web experience of having web pages that submit to servers and create other web pages? I'm not sure what prompted this reaction. I can only point at [1] to give you a baseline as to what the goals of Wicket are regarding the programming model. If you don't like the programming model, then you are welcome to suggest improvements, or if you /really/ don't like it pick one you do like. We won't threaten you, or hate you for the choice you make. Everything I see is trying to redefine how websites are developed and frankly I've yet to see a single framework that does this completely and doesn't get in the developer's way. Again I'm not sure what is bothering you. How, where and why is Wicket getting in your way? In the end, it's still a web page, and the expectations are there. For example, I want to submit a form, process the data, and redisplay the same page, though with some changes according to what was inputted. I don't know how to do this and I can't find anything in the docs. Why is something so simple, so trivial anywhere else not also trivial here in Wicket? I am sorry that you are not able to do and find what you want. But asking the right questions in the right tone will get you ahead much better than complaining that you couldn't perform a task so simple. Some things in Wicket require getting used to. One of those things are the Model concept, which is probably the cause of your frustration. I've never messed with the likes of Echo or GWT, but I can't think that these are any better as they try to abstract even farther by generating Javascript for super-dynamic (read: one-page browser-breaking) applications. Neither have I but I think they are filling a niche that needs to be filled. Apparently Google knows how to build a great application using GWT that scales tremendously (though they have the hardware and the bandwidth to support such scale too). Why is this, and where are the modern Java web frameworks that don't try to reinvent the concept of a website? I'm not sure what you mean by reinventing the concept of a website. If you talk about single page, ajax enabled, back button breaking applications... then wicket should fit your bill, as we support all 3 modes: * the usual multi page applications using traditional links (sprinkled with some ajax where it makes sense) * the less usual single page application using traditional links (using panel replacement, not breaking the back button, possibly sprinkled with some ajax), * the full blown single page, ajax enabled, back button breaking (though I think there are some ideas to enable the back button too, Dojo at least has support for that) interface. Wicket requires a more than basic understanding of object orientation: you need to know about the lifecycle of objects: construction (only once), rendering (multiple times), clean up (garbace collection, depending on the pagemap strategy). Once you grok the idea that construction is only done once, and that anything you push into components, will not update, then you're golden. Martijn [1] http://incubator.apache.org/wicket/vision.html -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user @Igor: It's not trivial because it requires complete understanding of the whole Model system of Wicket. As per my actual question email, Martijn posted exactly what I'm doing and how to solve it. In one aspect it is a part of learning a library, on the other hand it fits in with what I'm wondering: why the basic assumptions of building a web site keep getting thrown out of the window with every new Java web framework. I realize that people like the Swing framework for application building; I do to, it's quite fun to work with. But this isn't desktop application development, this is web application development. I've yet to see a website built to act like a desktop application that wasn't slow, buggy, broken in many browsers, convoluted and hard to use or any combination of these. This is one of the reasons that Rails is so successful. It doesn't try to redefine how websites
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
@Igor:
It's not trivial because it requires complete understanding of the whole
Model system of Wicket. As per my actual question email, Martijn posted
exactly what I'm doing and how to solve it.
model is a core concept of the framework, so you better understand at least
that before posting rants. personally i do not understand why it is so
difficult.
public interface IModel { Object getObject(); void setObject(Object o); }
its a small interface with a setter and a getter. there is no system, just
a bunch of different implementations of this interface for different
usecases. we have a great wiki page that describes the whole thing, dont
know why people always complain that our docs are crappy when most people
dont read them.
In one aspect it is a part of learning a library, on the other hand it fits
in with what I'm wondering: why the basic assumptions of building a web site
keep getting thrown out of the window with every new Java web framework.
because these frameworks are not about building web SITES, they are about
building web APPLICATIONS. google.com is a website, salesforce.com is an
application. you do not need a framework to build a web site.
I realize that people like the Swing framework for application building; I
do to, it's quite fun to work with. But this isn't desktop application
development, this is web application development. I've yet to see a website
built to act like a desktop application that wasn't slow, buggy, broken in
many browsers, convoluted and hard to use or any combination of these.
this isnt about building web applications that behave like desktop
applications. this is about bringing the programming model of desktop
applications to the we applications.
the programming model offered by servlets/jsp is utter crap. it is so
divergent from the programming model offered by swing and friends that there
are programmers that code java desktop apps that cant code java web apps,
and viceversa. why should that be so? why can i not reuse my java knowledge
to build web apps? why can i not use OO which is the central princimple of
java to build java webapps? this is what it is all about.
This is one of the reasons that Rails is so successful. It doesn't try to
redefine how websites are made, it simply makes it easier to follow the
paradigms that have been in play for 15+ years.
there are plenty of java frameworks that do this. struts, maverick, blah
blah, and the lot of the mvc frameworks. even some that are modern and clean
like stripes.
i would like you to support the statement that rails is successful with some
sort of proof/statistics. otherwise its just flame bait and makes you look
bad.
Now please don't take this as a bash towards Wicket,
no one will, you have shown that you do not understand what wicket is all
about, so your bashing wouldn't be credible :)
I'm just trying to understand why Java web frameworks are what they are and
why people aren't creating frameworks that make it easier and simpler to do
what people have been doing for years. Is it because of Java itself? the
Java community? Sun Microsystems? IBM WebSphere? What do you think?
i think you are confused :)
-igor
Jason
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
In one aspect it is a part of learning a library, on the other hand it fits in with what I'm wondering: why the basic assumptions of building a web site keep getting thrown out of the window with every new Java web framework. I realize that people like the Swing framework for application building; I do to, it's quite fun to work with. But this isn't desktop application development, this is web application development. I've yet to see a website built to act like a desktop application that wasn't slow, buggy, broken in many browsers, convoluted and hard to use or any combination of these. Blame the millions of users who disagree with you, and who use those buggy broken web apps daily. Also, note that it's about programming just as much. I don't know how happy you were using plain JSP or model 2 frameworks like Struts etc, but I encountered *serious* problems for building anything other than the most trivial app. No reuse, not much options for partitioning work amongst developers (and designers), hacks and code duplication all over the place. Wicket is trying to solve such issues, and in my - biased - experience it does a better job at that than I even expected in the first place. For the first time since I've been developing web apps the prospect of refactoring doesn't panic the entire team. This is one of the reasons that Rails is so successful. Oh, common'. Rails is mostly successful by PHP converts etc. I have heard quite a few stories of people who 'came back' to Java after a one-time experiment. I'm using Ruby regularly for sysadmin/ build scripts kind of stuff, and it's nice for that, but personally, I wouldn't want to use it for anything non-trivial in a million years. Just my opinion though. It doesn't try to redefine how websites are made, it simply makes it easier to follow the paradigms that have been in play for 15+ years. Well, from what I've seen Rails sucks. Really. I find it ugly to look at (JSP 1-ish), hardly has any abstraction and is all focussed on short-term productivity gain. I'm way more interested in long term gain (reuse, refactorability etc) and a good set of abstractions. I've stated this in various TSS threads, but what many people in my humble opinion don't seem to 'get' about OO is that it is as much about the abstractions (like the names, how classses relate to each other etc) than it is about the ability to create flexible software. Now please don't take this as a bash towards Wicket, I'm just trying to understand why Java web frameworks are what they are and why people aren't creating frameworks that make it easier and simpler to do what people have been doing for years. Well, you are mailing to a user list of a Java framework. This kind of discussion would better be had on TSS or similar sites. However, I don't mind discussing stuff like this here (though it gets tiring to have it again and again), just expect very straightforward answers back. Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
On 4/11/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, from what I've seen Rails sucks. Really. I find it ugly to look at (JSP 1-ish), hardly has any abstraction and is all focussed on short-term productivity gain. I'm way more interested in long term gain (reuse, refactorability etc) and a good set of abstractions. I've stated this in various TSS threads, but what many people in my humble opinion don't seem to 'get' about OO is that it is as much about the abstractions (like the names, how classses relate to each other etc) than it is about the ability to create flexible software. i want to see you build a blog using java in 15 minutes! i dare you. no i double dog dare you! you cant, can you? yeah, thats what i thought. java does suck indeed. nevermind that ruby is a write-only language. -igor - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
I started this thread because I wish Wicket would support the following feature. I wish that each form or form element element had a default renderer and would render itself without needing to be embedded in some other html file. If layout is a problem - find a solution. I wish that Wicket had a higher level of componentry which could be directed purely and simply by/in Java code alone. This was a how-to question - but perhaps now it is a feature request. Phil - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
i thought you were using Click?
anyways, what you want is possible, like ive mentioned, but is not the
primary focus of wicket. wicket is about separation of concerns. that means
letting the designers design the markup with all its pretty css and images,
rather then making developers try to reproduce that markup via layout
managers ala swing.
what you want is not our priority so it will probably never make it into
core project unless one of core developers writes it up and maintains it.
like i said take a look at bean panels, what you want is pretty simple to
achieve with a bit of work. let me give you a short example.
class textfieldpanel extends panel {
public textfieldpanel(string id, imodel model) {
super(id);
add(new textfield(tf, model));
}
}
wicket:panelinput wicket:id=tf type=text//wicket:panel
class checkboxpanel extends panel {
public checkboxpanel(string id, imodel model) {
super(id);
add(new checkbox(cb, model));
}
}
wicket:panelinput wicket:id=cb type=checkbox//wicket:panel
now in your page
Form form=new Form(form);
add(form);
RepeatingView items=new RepeatingView(items);
form.add(items);
items.add(new textfieldpanel(items.newchildid(), ..));
items.add(new checkboxpanel(items.newchildid(), ..));
and in markup
form wicket:id=formspan wicket:id=items/span/form
that is pretty close to what you want. you can then start adding labels to
your checkbox/textfield panels to add labels, etc
-igor
On 4/11/07, Philip Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started this thread because I wish Wicket would support the following
feature.
I wish that each form or form element element had a default renderer and
would render itself without needing to be embedded in some other html file.
If layout is a problem - find a solution. I wish that Wicket had a higher
level of componentry which could be directed purely and simply by/in Java
code alone. This was a how-to question - but perhaps now it is a feature
request.
Phil
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Thanks, Igor, for taking the effort to answer my question. I so understand
that one of the core vision statements is separation of concerns. I am
evaluating Click but haven't ruled out Wicket - just that some aspects of
Click seem less cumbersome because separation of concerns is not a priority
there - Click seems to suit what I need better than what Eelco had suggested
much earier: Echo.
Thanks for your time,
Phil
On 4/11/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i thought you were using Click?
anyways, what you want is possible, like ive mentioned, but is not the
primary focus of wicket. wicket is about separation of concerns. that means
letting the designers design the markup with all its pretty css and images,
rather then making developers try to reproduce that markup via layout
managers ala swing.
what you want is not our priority so it will probably never make it into
core project unless one of core developers writes it up and maintains it.
like i said take a look at bean panels, what you want is pretty simple to
achieve with a bit of work. let me give you a short example.
class textfieldpanel extends panel {
public textfieldpanel(string id, imodel model) {
super(id);
add(new textfield(tf, model));
}
}
wicket:panelinput wicket:id=tf type=text//wicket:panel
class checkboxpanel extends panel {
public checkboxpanel(string id, imodel model) {
super(id);
add(new checkbox(cb, model));
}
}
wicket:panelinput wicket:id=cb type=checkbox//wicket:panel
now in your page
Form form=new Form(form);
add(form);
RepeatingView items=new RepeatingView(items);
form.add(items);
items.add(new textfieldpanel(items.newchildid(), ..));
items.add(new checkboxpanel(items.newchildid(), ..));
and in markup
form wicket:id=formspan wicket:id=items/span/form
that is pretty close to what you want. you can then start adding labels to
your checkbox/textfield panels to add labels, etc
-igor
On 4/11/07, Philip Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I started this thread because I wish Wicket would support the following
feature.
I wish that each form or form element element had a default renderer and
would render itself without needing to be embedded in some other html file.
If layout is a problem - find a solution. I wish that Wicket had a higher
level of componentry which could be directed purely and simply by/in Java
code alone. This was a how-to question - but perhaps now it is a feature
request.
Phil
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV
___
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Inlined...
On 4/11/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish that each form or form element element had a default renderer and
would render itself without needing to be embedded in some other html
file.
Yep, gotcha.
If layout is a problem - find a solution.
It isn't a problem. It's a core assumption that Wicket works on
markup: 'enabling component-oriented, programmatic manipulation of
markup'.
I understand. I also understand Wicket's core vision includes separation of
concerns.
Also, since you think Click answers what you are looking for, I wonder
how this is so different?
Java:
Form form = new Form();
textField = new TextField(search);
form.add(textField);
Select typeSelect = new Select(type);
typeSelect.addAll(new String[] {ID, Name, Age});
typeSelect.setValue(Name);
form.add(typeSelect);
Html:
$form.startTag()
bCustomer/b ${form.fields.search}${form.fields.type}${form.fields.go}
$form.endTag()
I'll assume that the $ signs are Velocity tags and you are refering to
Click. Yes, Click does integrate Velocity tags - but for the most part you
won't have to use them. If you create a form for example in Click, it
renders the entire form and its components for you and layout is
customizable via a set of flags and via CSS. Everything is coded in Java,
has default renders, and is customizable.
Besides whether that's better than how Wicket does it or not, you
really are referring to those components in HTML right?
To some extent perhaps. But the title of this thread is Creating Entire
Forms in Java Code Only? Click does create and render all forms in code
(without Velocity) using default rendering which is customizable. Perhaps
Click just needs more configurability is its layout component for general
use. Click also renders table automatically. Click also supports Panels.
I recommended Echo (and GWT if you like) as there you work with layout
managers rather than with markup. I thought that's what you wanted
being a Swing guy. So I was surpised to learn you thought about Click
now (though there's nothing wrong with that of course).
I don't mind working with HTML markup. But object-oriented programming
languages like Java can allow us to abstract away from the tedium and
cumbersomeness of rendering html; e.g. encapsulation.
If you mean that you prefer components to directly spit out HTML,
that's very easy with Wicket, just like:
protected void onComponentTagBody(MarkupStream markupStream,
ComponentTag openTag) {
getResponse().write(foobarudududud/bar/foo);
}
etc. But like we stated before, this wouldn't be the recommended way
of working with Wicket. More of a break out option and optimization.
I understand. Thanks. One of Rail's mantra is convention over configuration.
Being able to render default HTML for common types of controls seems
conventional - it seems less cumbersome. I am not disrespecting Wicket - I
appreciate Wicket but I wish that it were less cumbersome to use for UI
programmers.
Eelco
-
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
On 4/11/07, Philip Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I understand. Thanks. One of Rail's mantra is convention over configuration. Being able to render default HTML for common types of controls seems conventional - it seems less cumbersome. I am not disrespecting Wicket - I appreciate Wicket but I wish that it were less cumbersome to use for UI programmers. tbh, i actually tried to do this in an application i was building using wicket2.0. it worked great for prototyping things, but it did produce forms that werent very usable because the layout was too pragmatic. sometimes you want two text components to share a label, sometimes not. sometimes you want two components to be in the same row, sometimes not. in the end i always ended up going through and redoing my bean panel with regular markup and form components because the users complained. it wouldve actually saved me time doing it the way its usually done the first time, but i wanted to experiment with bean panels for myself :) just my experience. -igor - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
After 40+ hours of more research, I did indeed find my style of coding - and it clicks. Page-based, component-based, object-oriented web interfaces driven by Java code with automatic html rendering. http://click.sourceforge.net/ Phil On 4/8/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like Echo is more your style of coding. See http://www.nextapp.com/ Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
After 40+ hours of more research, I did indeed find my style of coding - and it clicks. Page-based, component-based, object-oriented web interfaces driven by Java code with automatic html rendering. http://click.sourceforge.net/ Phil On 4/8/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It sounds like Echo is more your style of coding. See http://www.nextapp.com/ Labeling it 'object oriented' imo is wrong: objects are stateful by definition. I wouldn't label Click OO, as it doesn't support automatic state management (which is one of the central concepts of Wicket). Anyway, cool that you found a framework you're happy with. What I like about Click is that it provides what looks like a clean programming model, and is more about Java programming than XML configuration. What I don't like about it is that it gives you the promise of OO coding, but stops half way. But well... I bet the people from Click would call that pragmatic :) It sure *does* look a lot better than most of the alternatives out there. Eelco Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
After 40+ hours of more research, I did indeed find my style of coding - and it clicks. Page-based, ... Another thing I don't agree with is that page-orientation is something to aim for[1]. I believe a mixed model is more powerful[2]. There's a lot more that can be said about the different frameworks, but I think it can be summed up by saying that Click is primarily pragmatic and focussed on simplicity, whereas Wicket is focussed on providing a true OO programming model with clean separation of markup and logic. Imo, there's something to say for both. [1] http://www.nabble.com/Click-Rules%21%21%21-tf3555269.html [2] http://chillenious.wordpress.com/2006/07/16/on-page-navigation/ - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Hello, I've been following the discussions here, and this one caught my eye. Does this mean that Wicket is ill suited for example for creating dynamic forms that are built dynamically at runtime after reading some page definition file from xml or some other data store. I havent looked into Wicket deeply, I just skimmed the surface, but I'm currently thinking about converting a Struts solution that builds forms based on form metadata stored in xml files. In my case, almost all jsp's have the same layout, and only differ in the form fields shown. On 4/9/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am interested in creating a complex form in Java code without needing to manually configure any html for that form. In Swing for example, when you create a text field, it automatically has a default representation/view. Not a good comparison though, as Swing doesn't generate markup. Like with Swing you have to know where/ how your components need to be positioned using layout managers, with Wicket you need to tell where in the markup the components are located. It doesn't have to be a big problem though. As you start out, just keep your markup super simple, and later revisit to do more advanced layout etc. If you think a little bit ahead, and use CSS extensively, you typically don't very often have to change the hierarchy and you should get by just tweaking the templates and CSS. If you want a default look/ layout, you can use panels. You can provide custom markup for overriding classes later if you wish. It basically would be really sweet to be able to create forms, form elements, form layouts directly in Java code - and then later be able to tweak or tailor layout, css, etc. (perhaps via fragments?) As a Swing developer, I tend to develop every aspect of UIs in code. I've been using Wicket for just a couple of days. Where should I be looking? How do I approach this? strategies, Fragments, WebComponents? markup inheritance? ... It sounds like Echo is more your style of coding. See http://www.nextapp.com/ Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
Hello, I've been following the discussions here, and this one caught my eye. Does this mean that Wicket is ill suited for example for creating dynamic forms that are built dynamically at runtime after reading some page definition file from xml or some other data store. I havent looked into Wicket deeply, I just skimmed the surface, but I'm currently thinking about converting a Struts solution that builds forms based on form metadata stored in xml files. In my case, almost all jsp's have the same layout, and only differ in the form fields shown. On the contrairy, Wicket is very well suited for that. Panels is the magic word. Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Actually I just did this at work but I used fragments rather than panels. We just need a simpler datatype-html widget look up so I just went with fragments so that I don't need to build a bunch of java class and html files. The fragments are named according to the type they represent so I can simply say : Fragment f = new Fragment(item, typeName); f.add(new TextField(...)); etc. There are, of course, some if checks to determine which component to add to f but this makes it pretty easy to add new widgets. Now if we ever need to start adding some very complex components I might move over to using panels. But for our simple form builder, the fragments work just fine. Eelco Hillenius wrote: Hello, I've been following the discussions here, and this one caught my eye. Does this mean that Wicket is ill suited for example for creating dynamic forms that are built dynamically at runtime after reading some page definition file from xml or some other data store. I havent looked into Wicket deeply, I just skimmed the surface, but I'm currently thinking about converting a Struts solution that builds forms based on form metadata stored in xml files. In my case, almost all jsp's have the same layout, and only differ in the form fields shown. On the contrairy, Wicket is very well suited for that. Panels is the magic word. Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - -- Justin Lee http://www.antwerkz.com AIM : evan chooly Skype : evanchooly -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (Cygwin) iD8DBQFGGiTLJnQfEGuJ90MRA+GxAKCqEmm3J1/k2O4xGD4x+7Q/Tw6PaQCdHyyh 5RWxlT4OYskq9NivC3mpa5Y= =5LJx -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
search the list and wiki for bean panels. there is also a bean panel project in wicket-stuff although i dont know how usable it is. -igor On 4/8/07, Philip Weaver [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am interested in creating a complex form in Java code without needing to manually configure any html for that form. In Swing for example, when you create a text field, it automatically has a default representation/view. If I decide I'd like to change the view, I set a new UI object. It basically would be really sweet to be able to create forms, form elements, form layouts directly in Java code - and then later be able to tweak or tailor layout, css, etc. (perhaps via fragments?) As a Swing developer, I tend to develop every aspect of UIs in code. I've been using Wicket for just a couple of days. Where should I be looking? How do I approach this? strategies, Fragments, WebComponents? markup inheritance? ... Thanks, Phil - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
I'm just going to echo what Eelco originally said: HTML is quite good for defining forms. I'm glad people have found ways to generate them from XML or whatever (and for some purposes I'm sure that's best), but I would encourage new users to keep an open mind about plain HTML templates for forms (and everything else). It's not always easy to accept coming from other Java frameworks where things are so different, but I hate to see people building heavy-duty (and ultimately inflexible) form generators just to avoid coding up ten different forms in HTML. A really swell idea from Galligan's Groovy demo was generating basic form markup for components and dumping it to stdout. Ideally, this would go into the component missing from markup error screen. Then you could copy, paste, and add whatever extra markup you want. The demo is here if anyone missed it: http://bigheadco.blogspot.com/2007/03/party-on-patio.html Nathan - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] Creating Entire Forms in Java Code Only?
I am interested in creating a complex form in Java code without needing to manually configure any html for that form. In Swing for example, when you create a text field, it automatically has a default representation/view. Not a good comparison though, as Swing doesn't generate markup. Like with Swing you have to know where/ how your components need to be positioned using layout managers, with Wicket you need to tell where in the markup the components are located. It doesn't have to be a big problem though. As you start out, just keep your markup super simple, and later revisit to do more advanced layout etc. If you think a little bit ahead, and use CSS extensively, you typically don't very often have to change the hierarchy and you should get by just tweaking the templates and CSS. If you want a default look/ layout, you can use panels. You can provide custom markup for overriding classes later if you wish. It basically would be really sweet to be able to create forms, form elements, form layouts directly in Java code - and then later be able to tweak or tailor layout, css, etc. (perhaps via fragments?) As a Swing developer, I tend to develop every aspect of UIs in code. I've been using Wicket for just a couple of days. Where should I be looking? How do I approach this? strategies, Fragments, WebComponents? markup inheritance? ... It sounds like Echo is more your style of coding. See http://www.nextapp.com/ Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
