Re: RE: Things I miss in Wicket
You could take a look at the Hippo blog project, (follow the README)
http://svn.hippocms.org/repos/hippo/experimental/hippo-blog/trunk
It is composed of a customized CMS and a site web-application.
The cms has the blog document types added as an additional jar to the
standard packaged cms war. The frontend is built with the Hippo site
toolkit, http://www.onehippo.org/site-toolkit, using jsp for the
rendering. (yes, I would love to see a wicket frontend there too!)
The console should make clear what I've hinted to in this thread.
Plugins are configured with nodes in the (jcr) repository, and they are
started and stopped in groups/clusters.
(see /hippo:configuration/hippo:frontend/cms)
It is useful to think of plugins as units of configuration; if a plugin
is evolving to the point where its configuration becomes intimidating,
it's about time to break the plugin up into parts. Conversely, if a set
of plugins needs to be kept closely in sync with their configuration,
they probably aren't as independent as you would like and you're better
off coding it in java.
Coming back to an earlier post: I don't see the web-application
builder happening though; the one where you never need to touch code.
An interesting application will have many components with complex
interactions, by definition. Of course, one should decouple as many
components as possible and make the way they work and hang together
configurable. But the complexity of an application flow is still there
and you have to express it either in configuration or in code. I think
we can all agree that code works better here, or we wouldn't be using
Wicket!
thanks for the interest!
cheers, Frank
On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 20:40 +0100, Tobias Marx wrote:
Great!
Are there any demo/reference websites that run Hippo CMS or Hippo Portal?
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:12:13 +0100
Von: Frank van Lankvelt f.vanlankv...@onehippo.com
An: users@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: RE: Things I miss in Wicket
Sure these kinds of things exist. In Hippo CMS 7, we're nesting panels
that each have their own instance-specific configuration. Different
document types have a corresponding (admittedly quite simple) plugin
configuration that can be edited within the cms. The cms itself is
mostly a (more involved) configuration of such loosely-coupled generic
panels.
This approach is actually opposite to Wickets philosophy (only Java +
HTML). But the great thing about combining opposites is that there is a
sliding scale for doing things. You can start out using the generic
building blocks, giving you limited flexibility in terms of how these
panels can interact, but at least they can be easily configured using a
web interface. Then, as your needs transcend the possibilities of this
simplistic solution, you can write your own plugins with the full power
of Wicket at your disposal.
Cheers, Frank
-Original Message-
From: Tobias Marx [mailto:superoverdr...@gmx.de]
Sent: 16 January 2009 14:10
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Brix only works the way it works because it does not need a
database..with a flexible achitecture and a database this
would not be possible without too many limitations either.
The ultimate goal would be a web-application builder...or at
least a highly configurable website (whatever kind of) that
only needs to be written once and can be customized easily
without changing the code.
So far this does not existthe thing that comes closed is
Typo3, Drupal or something like that...or the Dolphin
community builder - but this is all at a very early stage and
so far starting from scratch is often the better option in
the long-term.
Original-Nachricht
Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:59:11 -0500
Von: Richard Allen richard.l.al...@gmail.com
An: users@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket
What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal
Java applications - although rich clients applications are being
replaced
with
web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between
web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java
application as a product, it is normal to employ software
developers
that
work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly
develop
and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software
developer.
Being more like a normal Java application (whatever that is :) is
precisely why some of us like Wicket.
An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is
never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new
features necessary but in this time there could be
several small
changes
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 01:47:16PM +0100, Tobias Marx exclaimed: I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize web-development in Java. Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to find out which framework is most flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support this project. So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible to write web applications that allow you to create webapplications, meaning that you can not read the configuration of a form from the database and create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to implement an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a configurable community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. I think this is why most of us love wicket... It *is* like writing a normal java application and, IMO, comes out more maintainable and reliable in the end. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. This sounds like you want a CMS? Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot better. What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry templates? So far most of my projects are still good old PHP codestupid but efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any fundamental changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to know in detail.. So long... I can see where your coming from, but I think your missing the point. I've written several large web applications using PHP, JSP+Servlet, Spring MVC, etc. Large applications, especially with a large development team, tend to become spaghetti very quickly. Using wicket allows us to seperate responsibilities (HTML designers, jr programmers, sr programmers, etc) very cleanly. The end result is a more maintainable and reliable product. Not to mention that the components you create can be used on future projects. This saves a ton of time. In my experience, going in later and adding new features is much easier because the code is cleaner and the design is better (this is one definition of maintainability). It sounds like you want something with a lot of *magic* like grails. To be honest I used grails for about 2-3 months and I just couldn't get into it. All the behind the scenes vodoo seemed to get in the way, I prefer to know how all the pieces are working. If your building small to medium size applications I could see grails or a CMS fitting your needs. You didn't mention how much you have done with wicket, but I think it takes a while (and a project or two) before you really realize the beauty of its approach to building web applications. I certainly won't be switching away any time soon :-) -Ryan Toby Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 Von: Trevor Burnham trevorburn...@gmail.com An: Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Hi Toby, I've been considering creating a new project that would split away from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Hi Sébastien, 1) and 2) are already implemented, or something very close exists. 3) may be a good improvement, maybe with a new wicket tag (wicket:component type=com.me.MyCustomComp /). let's see what think core developpers hehe - that one already exists, too! :D Best regards, --- Jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Sure! sorry, missed that one... Well, all requirements were already implemented :D If I were naughty, I would write rtfm ;) Jan Kriesten wrote: Hi Sébastien, 1) and 2) are already implemented, or something very close exists. 3) may be a good improvement, maybe with a new wicket tag (wicket:component type=com.me.MyCustomComp /). let's see what think core developpers hehe - that one already exists, too! :D Best regards, --- Jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Hi Jan, Can you point to a place where this is documented? Its not on http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wickets-xhtml-tags.html. Regards, Erik. Jan Kriesten wrote: 3) may be a good improvement, maybe with a new wicket tag (wicket:component type=com.me.MyCustomComp /). let's see what think core developpers hehe - that one already exists, too! : -- Erik van Oosten http://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: Things I miss in Wicket
Hi Erik, Can you point to a place where this is documented? Its not on http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wickets-xhtml-tags.html. actually, it is there. :) ---8--- Element wicket:component wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. (THIS TAG IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CORE TEAM) ---8--- Since wicket:component has some issues (e.g. HeaderContribution doesn't work) I build my own DynComponent some time ago (see my blog for details). Best regards, --- Jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Yep, I did see that. However, it does not describe the type attribute Pills described: Pills wrote: 3) may be a good improvement, maybe with a new wicket tag (wicket:component type=com.me.MyCustomComp /). let's see what think core developpers Jan Kriesten wrote Hi Erik, Can you point to a place where this is documented? Its not on http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wickets-xhtml-tags.html. actually, it is there. :) ---8--- Element wicket:component wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. (THIS TAG IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE CORE TEAM) ---8--- Since wicket:component has some issues (e.g. HeaderContribution doesn't work) I build my own DynComponent some time ago (see my blog for details). Best regards, --- Jan. -- Erik van Oosten http://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: Things I miss in Wicket
Hi Erik, Yep, I did see that. However, it does not describe the type attribute Pills described: just replace 'type' with 'class' and you're there. Also, any other attribute you put into the wicket:component tag is looked a setter on the class for, so you can pass parameters in from you html code. Best regards, --- Jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Jan Kriesten wrote: just replace 'type' with 'class' and you're there. Also, any other attribute you put into the wicket:component tag is looked a setter on the class for, so you can pass parameters in from you html code. Best regards, --- Jan. Ouch, that is ugly. Now I understand why it is deprecated. Erik. -- Erik van Oosten http://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: Things I miss in Wicket
Ouch, that is ugly. Now I understand why it is deprecated. It for sure is nothing meant to be used on a day-to-day basis, right. But there are use cases where you're happy it exists. Best regards, --- Jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize web-development in Java. Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to find out which framework is most flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support this project. So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible to write web applications that allow you to create webapplications, meaning that you can not read the configuration of a form from the database and create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to implement an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a configurable community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot better. What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry templates? So far most of my projects are still good old PHP codestupid but efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any fundamental changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to know in detail.. So long... Toby Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 Von: Trevor Burnham trevorburn...@gmail.com An: Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Hi Toby, I've been considering creating a new project that would split away from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed for common use cases, to make things easier on designers, and to provide more seamless interoperability with other popular libraries (e.g. Spring). Do you think you might contribute to such a project? For now, I'm just testing to see if there's interest. Cheers, Trevor On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Tobias Marx wrote: Hi there! There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve the framework a lot. But just some small background first: In my opinion the most important things in a web application are: - as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary - separation of design and web application code and logic - if a webapplication changes in the design or some small items are added this should be possible without needing a java developer Therefore I would like to suggest more intelligent templates in Wicket: 1. Pass parameters inside of wicket components eg: div wicket:id=myComponent paramA=blabla paramB=blabla2/div and make them accessible in the Java code. This is a way to customize and reuse components purely by editing templates 2. Make Strings/Labels accessible directly in templatesto avoid redundant code like this: add(new Label(indexTitle, .) and instead allow to add properties directly. 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically I
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
All you need is a RAD IDE that co-operates well with the typesafe wicket. ** Martin 2009/1/16 Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de: I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize web-development in Java. Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to find out which framework is most flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support this project. So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible to write web applications that allow you to create webapplications, meaning that you can not read the configuration of a form from the database and create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to implement an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a configurable community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot better. What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry templates? So far most of my projects are still good old PHP codestupid but efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any fundamental changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to know in detail.. So long... Toby Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 Von: Trevor Burnham trevorburn...@gmail.com An: Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Hi Toby, I've been considering creating a new project that would split away from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed for common use cases, to make things easier on designers, and to provide more seamless interoperability with other popular libraries (e.g. Spring). Do you think you might contribute to such a project? For now, I'm just testing to see if there's interest. Cheers, Trevor On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Tobias Marx wrote: Hi there! There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve the framework a lot. But just some small background first: In my opinion the most important things in a web application are: - as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary - separation of design and web application code and logic - if a webapplication changes in the design or some small items are added this should be possible without needing a java developer Therefore I would like to suggest more intelligent templates in Wicket: 1. Pass parameters inside of wicket components eg: div wicket:id=myComponent paramA=blabla paramB=blabla2/div and make them accessible in the Java code. This is a way to customize and reuse components purely by editing templates 2. Make Strings/Labels accessible directly in templatesto avoid redundant code like this: add(new Label(indexTitle, .) and instead allow to add properties directly. 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
I don't think so. It would help you to write lots of code faster - but still there is lots of code. The more code the longer it takes for a (new) developer / freelancer to find his way around ...and the more code you need to change if code changes are necessary, This is why I am not fan of Netbeans - if you know it well you can write code fast...with code generation and thousands of XML generating tools - but in the end you have a projects with lots of code..lots of redundant code that would not be necessary. For example Tapesty5 also picks up Components automaticallywithout having to define them in the code or some xml. Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:31:39 +0200 Von: Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically This should be accomplished using and IDE, not by default. I would not mind an IDE that could match the wicket:id's at when writing. ** Martin I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copypaste code...by improving templates Thanks for listening... Toby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. Being more like a normal Java application (whatever that is :) is precisely why some of us like Wicket. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. This sounds quite unrealistic to me for most applications. But I think a CMS (such as Brix: http://code.google.com/p/brix-cms/) comes close to what you are asking for if I understand what you are trying to get at. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user Again, a CMS. -Richard
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
I think everyone should be allowed to use the tools they want to use..and I think people should do what they are supposed to be doing. Webdesigners/HTMLers should work on the templates and design and programmers on Java code. Webdesigners should work with the tools they know and are familiar with I don't want programmers to Slice HTML and I don't want designers to compile Java code. But if design changes make it necessary to touch the Java code there is an error by design Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:53:05 +0200 Von: Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket All you need is a RAD IDE that co-operates well with the typesafe wicket. ** Martin 2009/1/16 Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de: I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize web-development in Java. Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to find out which framework is most flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support this project. So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible to write web applications that allow you to create webapplications, meaning that you can not read the configuration of a form from the database and create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to implement an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a configurable community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot better. What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry templates? So far most of my projects are still good old PHP codestupid but efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any fundamental changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to know in detail.. So long... Toby Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 Von: Trevor Burnham trevorburn...@gmail.com An: Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Hi Toby, I've been considering creating a new project that would split away from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed for common use cases, to make things easier on designers, and to provide more seamless interoperability with other popular libraries (e.g. Spring). Do you think you might contribute to such a project? For now, I'm just testing to see if there's interest. Cheers, Trevor On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Tobias Marx wrote: Hi there! There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve the framework a lot. But just some small background first: In my opinion the most important things in a web application are: - as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary - separation of design and web
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
I don't think so. It would help you to write lots of code faster - but still there is lots of code. Whether you get a lot of code depends on your particular design or wicketstuff/extensions library. The more code the longer it takes for a (new) developer / freelancer to find his way around ... and the more code you need to change if code changes are necessary, Well, wicket is not a CMS... if you need custom logic you need the code behind. There's no way around it except good design and good libraries. Ok, the alternative is making spaghetti. ** Martin Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 06:31:39 +0200 Von: Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically This should be accomplished using and IDE, not by default. I would not mind an IDE that could match the wicket:id's at when writing. ** Martin I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copypaste code...by improving templates Thanks for listening... Toby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Hi Tobias, I don't agree on a couple of points you made on Wicket. Wicket is providing the GUI and you have to make sure your gluing to the backend is as transparent as it can be. So, if you have your interfaces untouched, you wont need to touch the Java code again for your 3-5 years. Also, wicket allows easy separation of your markup from your Java code, making redesign not that a big task as you suggest (given that the hierarchies need to be kept). But, I think a web /application/ is meant to evolve and not left untouched for years. Another thing about Wicket: It's all about reusability. If you design components, you can jar them up and just drop them into another project. That's one thing most frameworks don't allow. If you want to sell a product and don't want the customer to know Java: get your resources from a database and integrate some kind of templating. It just works with Wicket as well. I think I write my web applications at least as fast as you do with PHP. I have my established Wicket base and just put together the components I need: drop in authentication, localize things, complex wizards... I doubt you'll be that error-free in writing such code with PHP than you'd do with Wicket as a base. I never needed to debug much with Wicket at all. Most PHP I've seen mixes business logic and user interface so badly that - when you need to enhance things - you're really in trouble. My 2c, --- Jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Brix only works the way it works because it does not need a database..with a flexible achitecture and a database this would not be possible without too many limitations either. The ultimate goal would be a web-application builder...or at least a highly configurable website (whatever kind of) that only needs to be written once and can be customized easily without changing the code. So far this does not existthe thing that comes closed is Typo3, Drupal or something like that...or the Dolphin community builder - but this is all at a very early stage and so far starting from scratch is often the better option in the long-term. Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:59:11 -0500 Von: Richard Allen richard.l.al...@gmail.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. Being more like a normal Java application (whatever that is :) is precisely why some of us like Wicket. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. This sounds quite unrealistic to me for most applications. But I think a CMS (such as Brix: http://code.google.com/p/brix-cms/) comes close to what you are asking for if I understand what you are trying to get at. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user Again, a CMS. -Richard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
If only html dom was more flexible :) ** Martin 2009/1/16 Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de: I think everyone should be allowed to use the tools they want to use..and I think people should do what they are supposed to be doing. Webdesigners/HTMLers should work on the templates and design and programmers on Java code. Webdesigners should work with the tools they know and are familiar with I don't want programmers to Slice HTML and I don't want designers to compile Java code. But if design changes make it necessary to touch the Java code there is an error by design Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:53:05 +0200 Von: Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket All you need is a RAD IDE that co-operates well with the typesafe wicket. ** Martin 2009/1/16 Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de: I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize web-development in Java. Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to find out which framework is most flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support this project. So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible to write web applications that allow you to create webapplications, meaning that you can not read the configuration of a form from the database and create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to implement an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a configurable community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot better. What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry templates? So far most of my projects are still good old PHP codestupid but efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any fundamental changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to know in detail.. So long... Toby Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 Von: Trevor Burnham trevorburn...@gmail.com An: Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Hi Toby, I've been considering creating a new project that would split away from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed for common use cases, to make things easier on designers, and to provide more seamless interoperability with other popular libraries (e.g. Spring). Do you think you might contribute to such a project? For now, I'm just testing to see if there's interest. Cheers, Trevor On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Tobias Marx wrote: Hi there! There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve the framework a lot. But just some small background first: In my opinion the most important things in a web application
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 7:47 AM, Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de wrote: What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry templates? I don't think this would work very well. The Tapestry team's philosophy doesn't really work well with how the Wicket community works. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary where do you live? thats not my experience. Yes after a while the web app code is pretty done but then it did already run for 1 or 2 years in production Constantly changing so large parts of the development is done on trunk when there is already a tag thats in production. Thats how i think most do work. What some call design flaws we call design decisions
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
... or conscious design debt... ;) ** Martin 2009/1/16 Johan Compagner jcompag...@gmail.com: An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary where do you live? thats not my experience. Yes after a while the web app code is pretty done but then it did already run for 1 or 2 years in production Constantly changing so large parts of the development is done on trunk when there is already a tag thats in production. Thats how i think most do work. What some call design flaws we call design decisions - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
RE: Things I miss in Wicket
Sure these kinds of things exist. In Hippo CMS 7, we're nesting panels that each have their own instance-specific configuration. Different document types have a corresponding (admittedly quite simple) plugin configuration that can be edited within the cms. The cms itself is mostly a (more involved) configuration of such loosely-coupled generic panels. This approach is actually opposite to Wickets philosophy (only Java + HTML). But the great thing about combining opposites is that there is a sliding scale for doing things. You can start out using the generic building blocks, giving you limited flexibility in terms of how these panels can interact, but at least they can be easily configured using a web interface. Then, as your needs transcend the possibilities of this simplistic solution, you can write your own plugins with the full power of Wicket at your disposal. Cheers, Frank -Original Message- From: Tobias Marx [mailto:superoverdr...@gmx.de] Sent: 16 January 2009 14:10 To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Brix only works the way it works because it does not need a database..with a flexible achitecture and a database this would not be possible without too many limitations either. The ultimate goal would be a web-application builder...or at least a highly configurable website (whatever kind of) that only needs to be written once and can be customized easily without changing the code. So far this does not existthe thing that comes closed is Typo3, Drupal or something like that...or the Dolphin community builder - but this is all at a very early stage and so far starting from scratch is often the better option in the long-term. Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:59:11 -0500 Von: Richard Allen richard.l.al...@gmail.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. Being more like a normal Java application (whatever that is :) is precisely why some of us like Wicket. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. This sounds quite unrealistic to me for most applications. But I think a CMS (such as Brix: http://code.google.com/p/brix-cms/) comes close to what you are asking for if I understand what you are trying to get at. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user Again, a CMS. -Richard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org f.vanlankv...@onehippo.com www.onehippo.com Amsterdam Hippo B.V. Oosteinde 11 1017 WT Amsterdam +31(0)20-5224466 San Francisco Hippo USA Inc. 101 H Street, suite Q Petaluma CA 94952-5100 +1-877-41-HIPPO - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: RE: Things I miss in Wicket
Great! Are there any demo/reference websites that run Hippo CMS or Hippo Portal? Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:12:13 +0100 Von: Frank van Lankvelt f.vanlankv...@onehippo.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: RE: Things I miss in Wicket Sure these kinds of things exist. In Hippo CMS 7, we're nesting panels that each have their own instance-specific configuration. Different document types have a corresponding (admittedly quite simple) plugin configuration that can be edited within the cms. The cms itself is mostly a (more involved) configuration of such loosely-coupled generic panels. This approach is actually opposite to Wickets philosophy (only Java + HTML). But the great thing about combining opposites is that there is a sliding scale for doing things. You can start out using the generic building blocks, giving you limited flexibility in terms of how these panels can interact, but at least they can be easily configured using a web interface. Then, as your needs transcend the possibilities of this simplistic solution, you can write your own plugins with the full power of Wicket at your disposal. Cheers, Frank -Original Message- From: Tobias Marx [mailto:superoverdr...@gmx.de] Sent: 16 January 2009 14:10 To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Brix only works the way it works because it does not need a database..with a flexible achitecture and a database this would not be possible without too many limitations either. The ultimate goal would be a web-application builder...or at least a highly configurable website (whatever kind of) that only needs to be written once and can be customized easily without changing the code. So far this does not existthe thing that comes closed is Typo3, Drupal or something like that...or the Dolphin community builder - but this is all at a very early stage and so far starting from scratch is often the better option in the long-term. Original-Nachricht Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:59:11 -0500 Von: Richard Allen richard.l.al...@gmail.com An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. Being more like a normal Java application (whatever that is :) is precisely why some of us like Wicket. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. This sounds quite unrealistic to me for most applications. But I think a CMS (such as Brix: http://code.google.com/p/brix-cms/) comes close to what you are asking for if I understand what you are trying to get at. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user Again, a CMS. -Richard - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org f.vanlankv...@onehippo.com www.onehippo.com Amsterdam Hippo B.V. Oosteinde 11 1017 WT Amsterdam +31(0)20-5224466 San Francisco Hippo USA Inc. 101 H Street, suite Q Petaluma CA 94952-5100 +1-877-41-HIPPO - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
i dont think you have ever had a designer go in and edit php scripts from your applications :) in the old times i have worked on tons of jsp projects where, even though we tried very hard to keep logic down to a minimum inside the jsp itself, the designers went in and completely foobarred it, often beyond repair. at least with wicket there is just the raw markup. the only things the designers have to watch out for is not to change any nesting of tags with wicket:id, but that is a trivial thing to to teach a dreamweaver monkey compared to all the idiosyncrasies of a jsp. i think what you are getting at is that there are two types of code: application and ui. and you prefer the ui code to be interpreted rather then compiled/deployed. that might work for simple apps, but wicket is usually used for intranets with complex uis where advantages of abstraction and compile time checkings outweigh that of a lightweight deployment. just my two cents. -igor On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de wrote: I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize web-development in Java. Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to find out which framework is most flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support this project. So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible to write web applications that allow you to create webapplications, meaning that you can not read the configuration of a form from the database and create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to implement an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a configurable community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is expensiveeverything has to be done by a software developer. An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary but in this time there could be several small changes or complete re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new strings.or whateveror maybe a new Flash component etcthis should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Javathey would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in user If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot better. What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry templates? So far most of my projects are still good old PHP codestupid but efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any fundamental changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to know in detail.. So long... Toby Original-Nachricht Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 Von: Trevor Burnham trevorburn...@gmail.com An: Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket Hi Toby, I've been considering creating a new project that would split away from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed for common use cases, to make things easier on designers, and to provide more seamless interoperability with other popular libraries (e.g. Spring). Do you think you might contribute to such a project? For now, I'm just testing to see if there's interest. Cheers, Trevor On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Tobias Marx wrote: Hi there! There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve the framework a lot. But just some small background first: In my
Things I miss in Wicket
Hi there! There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve the framework a lot. But just some small background first: In my opinion the most important things in a web application are: - as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary - separation of design and web application code and logic - if a webapplication changes in the design or some small items are added this should be possible without needing a java developer Therefore I would like to suggest more intelligent templates in Wicket: 1. Pass parameters inside of wicket components eg: div wicket:id=myComponent paramA=blabla paramB=blabla2/div and make them accessible in the Java code. This is a way to customize and reuse components purely by editing templates 2. Make Strings/Labels accessible directly in templatesto avoid redundant code like this: add(new Label(indexTitle, .) and instead allow to add properties directly. 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copypaste code...by improving templates Thanks for listening... Toby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Tobias Marx superoverdr...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi there!
There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve
the framework a lot.
But just some small background first:
In my opinion the most important things in a web application are:
- as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary
what good is a few lines if they are not maintainable? in wicket we
try to focus on the maintainability of the code first, not on the LOC
it takes to accomplished X. Further in your email you hint at moving
things into markup where everything a string and nothing is validated
by a compiler - this, while might be the quickest and easiest
approach, leads to unmaintainable code down the road. it also defines
behavior in two places instead of one, leading to more confusing code.
- separation of design and web application code and logic
- if a webapplication changes in the design or some small items are added
this should be possible without needing a java developer
this is possible to a large degree in wicket already, keeping in mind
that wicket's definition of design is very strict.
Therefore I would like to suggest more intelligent templates in Wicket:
1. Pass parameters inside of wicket components eg:
div wicket:id=myComponent paramA=blabla paramB=blabla2/div
and make them accessible in the Java code.
you can do this. override oncomponenttag(tag) {
paramA=tag.getattributes().get(paramA); }
This is a way to customize and reuse components purely by editing templates
like i said earlier, this is not really wicket's philosophy.
everything that affects behavior should be in java.
2. Make Strings/Labels accessible directly in templatesto avoid redundant
code like this:
add(new Label(indexTitle, .) and instead allow to add properties
directly.
see wicket:message tag and attribute.
3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java
code:
add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel));
add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel));
This could be matched automatically
you can accomplish this via IComponentResolver, there was a thread
recently on the list about this. getting back to maintainability -
this forces you to put the class name as a string into the template,
what happens when you rename or move that class?
-igor
I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copypaste code...by
improving templates
Thanks for listening...
Toby
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
Hi, 1) and 2) are already implemented, or something very close exists. 3) may be a good improvement, maybe with a new wicket tag (wicket:component type=com.me.MyCustomComp /). let's see what think core developpers 1) you have various way of altering tags and attributes: attributemodifiers, attributeappenders, overriding oncomponenttag, oncomponenttagbody... 2) you have the special wicket tag wicket:message key=resourcekey[...]/wicket:message to automatically add labels and stringmodels without any java representation Tobias Marx wrote: Hi there! There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could improve the framework a lot. But just some small background first: In my opinion the most important things in a web application are: - as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary - separation of design and web application code and logic - if a webapplication changes in the design or some small items are added this should be possible without needing a java developer Therefore I would like to suggest more intelligent templates in Wicket: 1. Pass parameters inside of wicket components eg: div wicket:id=myComponent paramA=blabla paramB=blabla2/div and make them accessible in the Java code. This is a way to customize and reuse components purely by editing templates 2. Make Strings/Labels accessible directly in templatesto avoid redundant code like this: add(new Label(indexTitle, .) and instead allow to add properties directly. 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copypaste code...by improving templates Thanks for listening... Toby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically This should be accomplished using and IDE, not by default. I would not mind an IDE that could match the wicket:id's at when writing. ** Martin I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copypaste code...by improving templates Thanks for listening... Toby - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
How are you envisioning this working from within an IDE? This sounds like an interesting feature to add. On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically This should be accomplished using and IDE, not by default. I would not mind an IDE that could match the wicket:id's at when writing. ** -- Nick Heudecker Professional Wicket Training Consulting http://www.systemmobile.com Eventful - Intelligent Event Management http://www.eventfulhq.com
Re: Things I miss in Wicket
How are you envisioning this working from within an IDE? This sounds like an interesting feature to add. Context-sensitive auto-complete, quickfix, ..., there are a lot of examples of suitable functionalities in Eclipse, for example. I have never implemented those, however. We could start gathering up a list of most important features and maybe add them into either some of the existing wicket ide plugins or roll out a separate helper plugin. ** Martin On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in the Java code: add(new LastPostsPanel(lastPostsPanel)); add(new NewsPanel(newsPanel)); This could be matched automatically This should be accomplished using and IDE, not by default. I would not mind an IDE that could match the wicket:id's at when writing. ** -- Nick Heudecker Professional Wicket Training Consulting http://www.systemmobile.com Eventful - Intelligent Event Management http://www.eventfulhq.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
