I was able to test some ajax functionality by firing events
with WicketTester, but something related to forms not. The
problematic form thing I just tested with Wicket Bench then.
If anyone is interested I can cook up a quickstart
representing the WicketTester-with-ajaxified-form problem.
I also had hair-pulling moments at first trying to understand static vs.
dynamic models. It was one of my principal motivations for re-writing
the wiki page.
Scott Swank wrote:
Read it? I have it printed off sitting on my desk. The key point I was
missing was that a static model for,
On Thu, 01 Feb 2007, Scott Swank wrote:
And we just got WicketTester up running. Very nice
stuff. Its
I checked yesterday and our .ui package had a line coverage
of 96 % or something such, slightly more than the overall
for the whole software :)
capabilities are already impressing folk.
I was able to test some ajax functionality by firing events
with WicketTester, but something related to forms not. The
problematic form thing I just tested with Wicket Bench then.
If anyone is interested I can cook up a quickstart
representing the WicketTester-with-ajaxified-form problem.
Very interesting to hear. Thank you.
On 1/31/07, beboris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have done some performance testing between JSF, JSP, Wicket and Stripes
when choosing a framework to develop Ajax-enabled WebUI.
You may find it interesting to know that our results showed JSF is at
least
If our JSF v. Wicket shakedown continues to clearly favor Wicket then I
imagine you'll see some from our corner of the web.
Scott
On 1/31/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and what we expect from our users are patches :)
-igor
On 1/31/07, Carfield Yim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And we just got WicketTester up running. Very nice stuff. Its
capabilities are already impressing folk. Are there any known things to be
aware of with respect to Ajax-ified apps WicketTester?
Continually impressed,
Scott
On 2/1/07, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If our JSF v.
Models are actually simpler than they look. If you haven't already read it,
this is a good primer:
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/working-with-wicket-models.html
Scott Swank wrote:
Thank you to both of you. And for anyone who's been paying any attention
to
my questions it's pretty
Read it? I have it printed off sitting on my desk. The key point I was
missing was that a static model for, lets say, a label holds the value in
question. For Ajax refreshes a dynamic model, such as a PropertyModel,
knows how to get the value and hence updates the label's contents on
refresh.
Heh, models take a while to grok. I guess most people have the same
problem at the beginning (I was no exception :))
-Matej
Scott Swank wrote:
Read it? I have it printed off sitting on my desk. The key point I
was missing was that a static model for, lets say, a label holds the
value in
Matej!
Even you!?
I can't believe that! you are making fun of me!
johan
On 2/1/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heh, models take a while to grok. I guess most people have the same
problem at the beginning (I was no exception :))
-Matej
Scott Swank wrote:
Read it? I have it
Yeah, well, it took me some time to realize the potential of wicket
models :)
I believe the way wicket models are is both blessing and curse. The
model interface is very simple and flexible, but on the other hand, the
possibilities (like nested and compound models) are not entirely obvious.
The wiki needs more examples that use a particular model in one or two
situations and then explain why that model is a good fit for the situation
at hand. Once I feel like I have a bit more solid grasp I'll volunteer my
time to such an effort.
Matej -- By nested do you mean what is referred to
Mmm, here's the rather frustrated response from the developer who's been
working on re-skinning DatePicker ModalWindow to get them to more
seamlessly fit our UI look/feel. Apart from this hitch the demo
implementation has been proceeded so well that we're trying to figure out
what else to do to
Ok, I dug into the DatePickerSettings and figured out that we can very
easily:
1. Apply our own css that overrides part of the existing css like so:
this.add(HeaderContributor.forCss(../../css/cyllenius_cal.css));
2. Apply our own css _instead of_ the existing css like so:
Correction. Step #1 is on the DatePicker itself, while step #2 is on the
DatePickerSettings. Dumb cut/paste mistake.
On 1/31/07, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ok, I dug into the DatePickerSettings and figured out that we can very
easily:
1. Apply our own css that overrides part of
one thing to keep in mind is that the modalwindow was _not meant_ to be very
customizable. it was meant to be a dropin component that you would use as
is. that is why we put so much work into making it look really good. what we
need to do is to extract an AbstractModalWindow that doesnt have all
On 1/31/07, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another silly issue that demonstrates the coupling of a component to its
CSS is that the modal window uses CSS's background-image in for its
blue/grey border. We can only override the image not remove it so that we
simply have a black line.
what we need to do is to extract an AbstractModalWindow that doesnt have
all the bells and whistles but lets you customize the look more.
+1 -- if we go with Wicket we might even contribute this ourselves
also can you not simply do modalwindow.setcssclassname(mine) and then
include an
Hi.
I guess someone should write a how to customize modal window article to
wiki :)
You don't have to use blue or grey css. You can specify your own style
selector in modal window (ModalWindow.setCssClassName). If you set it to
e.g. black, you won't even have the background images loaded.
As
Eelco Igor,
I'm in agreement on the broad component-packaging approach and had much the
same conversation with our developer (Chris). Mostly he was frustrated.
We're sub-classes both DatePicker ModalWindow so that they have our
look/feel for the prototype. Things really aren't nearly so bad
That someone may well be me -- once I have a better idea about how the
moving pieces (js css) fit together.
On 1/31/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi.
I guess someone should write a how to customize modal window article to
wiki :)
You don't have to use blue or grey css. You can
take a look at datatable example in wicket-examples.
Nice example, thank you.
-
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your
On 2/1/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one thing to keep in mind is that the modalwindow was _not meant_ to be very
customizable. it was meant to be a dropin component that you would use as
However, people like every component to be very customizable, that is
what client expect from
you are free to write your own if the one we provide doesnt fit your needs
:) we didnt use any api you dont have access to to create this one.
-igor
On 1/31/07, Carfield Yim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/1/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
one thing to keep in mind is that the
On 2/1/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you are free to write your own if the one we provide doesnt fit your needs
:) we didnt use any api you dont have access to to create this one.
Sure, no offence, in fact I am happy to use ModalWindow. I just say
what we expect for our software
and what we expect from our users are patches :)
-igor
On 1/31/07, Carfield Yim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/1/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you are free to write your own if the one we provide doesnt fit your
needs
:) we didnt use any api you dont have access to to create
We have done some performance testing between JSF, JSP, Wicket and Stripes
when choosing a framework to develop Ajax-enabled WebUI.
You may find it interesting to know that our results showed JSF is at least
3-4 times slower than JSP on simple pages (exactly as described at
Scott Swank wrote:
The stylesheet is not very simple though. -- Yup, that's that stage
we're
at. :)
It's much easier to change modal window markup by overriding javascript
function Wicket.Window.getMarkup.
--
Andrew Klochkov
Very kind, thank you.
On 1/29/07, Jonathan Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds very smart. I firmly believe that Wicket can peform and scale as
well as being productive and maintainable. Let me know if you run into a
need for consulting help in this arena (or any other).
Scott Swank
Interesting, I'll dig into that a bit. (Or more accurately, I'll pass this
on to the fellow who's actually working on the ModalWindow DatePicker css
for our demo).
Cheers,
Scott
On 1/30/07, Andrew Klochkov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Scott Swank wrote:
The stylesheet is not very simple
I have a grin on my face that stretches from my left ear to my right... Gogogo!
Martijn
On 1/29/07, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One week (of two) into the JSF vs. Wicket comparison here at Vegas.com
things are going nicely -- team Wicket is finished while team JSF is trying
to get
Thank you to both of you. And for anyone who's been paying any attention to
my questions it's pretty clear that I don't know Wicket particularly well
yet. I'm still fumbling around a bit with models. Further, the other three
folk had never set eyes on Wicket before last Monday.
Scott
I wish I could help you in person :) Unfortunately I'm not from US.
I'm afraid there's not much that can be done about ModalWindow feel,
unless you want to mess with the javascript :)
As for Look, you can specify custom stylesheet though. Actually, you can
set the CSS class modal window would
The stylesheet is not very simple though. -- Yup, that's that stage we're
at. :)
On 1/29/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish I could help you in person :) Unfortunately I'm not from US.
I'm afraid there's not much that can be done about ModalWindow feel,
unless you want to mess
But none the less, thank you very kindly.
On 1/29/07, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The stylesheet is not very simple though. -- Yup, that's that stage
we're at. :)
On 1/29/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wish I could help you in person :) Unfortunately I'm not from US.
whooohooo!
On 1/29/07, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One week (of two) into the JSF vs. Wicket comparison here at Vegas.comthings
are going nicely -- team Wicket is finished while team JSF is trying
to get Ajax functionality working. There were four people working on each
Yeah gogogo. :)
On 1/29/07, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As for Look, you can specify custom stylesheet though. Actually, you can
set the CSS class modal window would use (using
ModalWindow.setCssClassName())
You can have your own style, simple copying and modifying the modal.css
file
I apologize if this has been mentioned, but is comparative performance and
load testing planned? I'd love to see Wicket rule on this.
On 1/29/07, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One week (of two) into the JSF vs. Wicket comparison here at Vegas.comthings
are going nicely -- team Wicket
That would be interesting yeah. I'm not sure if there would be a clear winner.
Eelco
On 1/29/07, Christopher Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize if this has been mentioned, but is comparative performance and
load testing planned? I'd love to see Wicket rule on this.
On 1/29/07,
Right now we're focused on developer productivity, code-to-weight ratio and
code clarity. If this goes over then we'll look at performance.
Scott
On 1/29/07, Christopher Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize if this has been mentioned, but is comparative performance and
load testing
On 1/29/07, Christopher Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize if this has been mentioned, but is comparative performance and
load testing planned? I'd love to see Wicket rule on this.
You can read: http://jroller.com/page/JonathanLocke where we posted
some basic, non-representative
is tapestry performance a good benchmark? :)
-igor
On 1/29/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/29/07, Christopher Gardner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I apologize if this has been mentioned, but is comparative performance
and
load testing planned? I'd love to see Wicket rule on
On 1/29/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is tapestry performance a good benchmark? :)
Wait until we have an example that runs JSF...
Martijn
--
Vote for Wicket at the http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
Wicket 1.2.4 is as easy as 1-2-4. Download Wicket now!
Sounds very smart. I firmly believe that Wicket can peform and scale as
well as being productive and maintainable. Let me know if you run into a
need for consulting help in this arena (or any other).
Scott Swank wrote:
Right now we're focused on developer productivity, code-to-weight
45 matches
Mail list logo
