-user@lists.sourceforge.netBetreff: Re: [Wicket-user]
WebObjects open source?
-
Java code is MUCH cleaner with WO, you keep in code only data pushed in
thepresentation layer and actions. No need to add components and
configure them in java code.how is this MUCH cleaner
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
but this is for me where the problem is - if your components are
delcared declaratively then you cannot have dynamic page structures. eg
switching panels around, moving panels. this was one of the reasons i
switched away from tapestry.
Like this?
WO is free since about 1 year and may be about to become open source.
Try it and learn what some really talented people designed more than 10
years ago.
...and if you want to ask questions about technical details - ask the
people who know. WO has a very good on-line community.
yes that could be interesting ! To add on the subject, the binding file of WO
uses what they call KeyValueCoding to move back and forth values in
components
exemple, to declare a Label component :
myString : WOString { value = myObject.toString } or myLoginString :
WOString { value =
In fact, we prefer not deploy WO app in a servlet container.
A WO web app tool (called JavaMonitor) is used to deploy WO app, tweaking
params, numbers of instances, monitoring of sessions, load balancing.
You can also easely deploy instances on different servers... that's why we
haven't felt the
Frank Silbermann wrote:
Suppose I've built a page and later decide, in view of the DRY (Don't
Repeat Yourself) principle that a portion of my page should be refactored
into a custom component. With Wicket I can move some of the page's Java
code into my new panel class, and move HTML
: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
How you do (refactoring) with WO : WOLips (eclipse plugin) create a new
component (juste give it a name), open in WOBuilder (WYSIWYG editor for
editing simlessly both HTML template and binding file, in fact you don't
have to know there's 2 files), cut
not a lot of docs on that is there? here is what i infer - its a switch - that means you have to have all possibilities predefined and then at runtime choose which one to display. this is not dynamic because all choises are predefined. in wicket i can create any panel on the fly and swap it in for
WebObjects ? e.g. a small comparision?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag
von Anders Peterson
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. August 2006 10:41
An: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
I know
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anders
Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:51 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
Not sure what to say... it makes me productive...
It's
Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
Not sure what to say... it makes me productive... It's not really fair to compare Wicket and WebObjects (WO). WO is a whole package of frameworks and tools that function well together (but
can be used independently). Wicket needs team mates
There are other WO developers better suited to answer those question.
I'm cross posting to webobjects-talk and hope someone will pick up the
thread.
/Anders
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
I guess i would be interested in knowing how web objects stores state
and how the back button is handled.
is
] ] On
Behalf Of Anders
Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:51 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
Not sure what to say... it makes me productive...
It's not really fair to compare Wicket and WebObjects (WO). WO
12:51 PM To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
Not sure what to say... it makes me productive... It's not really fair to compare Wicket and WebObjects (WO). WO is a whole package of frameworks and tools that function well together
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anders
Peterson
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 2:21 AM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
Frank Silbermann wrote:
What facility does Web Objects provide that lets you avoid
Found a link that gives a nice overview of WebObjects. Make sure you watch a
15 min intro to WO:
http://rentzsch.com/webobjects/wo5in15
___
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
They've got a friggin' laser beam connecting data fields to their HTML
counterparts! I want a laser beam.
I wonder if we do could it, but without tools? Like, instead of
presenting that error screen when the markup doesn't match the component
hierarchy, we could have some ajaxy laser beam to
Martijn Dashorst martijn.dashorst at gmail.com writes:
Apple will make (most of) WebObjects open source with the new release
(http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608webobjects.html).
Has anyone worked with WebObjects and wishes to comment on it compared
to Wicket?
Martijn
We can only
looks to me (and i did know this before) that WO was light years ahead of its timeSuch a pitty that apple did keep it so closed... (do they something right ;))johanOn 8/30/06,
Alex [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn Dashorst martijn.dashorst at gmail.com writes: Apple will make (most of) WebObjects
They made good money of it I think... The list price was HUGE!
Martijn
On 8/30/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
looks to me (and i did know this before) that WO was light years ahead of
its time
Such a pitty that apple did keep it so closed... (do they something right
;))
johan
- Java code is MUCH cleaner with WO, you keep in code only data pushed in thepresentation layer and actions. No need to add components and configure them in
java code.how is this MUCH cleaner? just because there is no code? you can say code for a framework that is configured via xml is also
Thanks for that reply Alex! Some remarks below.
We can only compare the presentation stack of WO vs Wicket. Having worked with
both frameworks, here are some thoughts :
- Java code is MUCH cleaner with WO, you keep in code only data pushed in the
presentation layer and actions. No need to
but this is for me where the problem is - if your components are delcared
declaratively then you cannot have dynamic page structures. eg switching
panels around, moving panels.
Yeah, forgot to mention that one. VERY big thing.
Eelco
Thank's for your reply!
Only if you consider less the same as cleaner. If you are doing a lot
of inter-component interactions, this would actually be a
disadvantage. What I (and collegues) do a lot is use a component (e.g.
a panel) and a bunch of nested classes in that panel (Panels,
it really sucks that WO forces threadsafety onto the user when deployed as a java app. that is something we work hard on in wicket - to shield the users - because lets face it threadsafety is one of the most error prone tasks in coding.
For example, I'm thinking of some pages sometimes that
Off topic, are there other Web Mailinglist reader than gmane, its posting form
is driving me crazy.
Try nabble.com, or gmail.com ;-)
Martijn
--
Download Wicket 1.2.2 now! New Ajax components: Tree, TreeTable and ModalWindow
-- http://wicketframework.org
Can you expand on where/ why you think that difference comes from? Are
some of the default components of WO better abstracted for the kind of
things you do?
For example, I'm thinking of some pages sometimes that contains tons of little
dynamic label (or WOString ;)). In a declarative way,
The _Java_ code is cleaner and simpler withWeb
Objects, but in Wicket the HTML-based tag file is much cleaner. That
component configuration information has to go _somewhere_!
Personally, I find it much easier to read Java
syntaxthan HTML.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Igor has already mentioned one advantage of declaring and configuring
components in code -- it is easy to make the presentation very dynamic. For
example, when displaying products from a catalog, the page constructor can vary
the display-components used depending upon the type of product
I know WebObjects much better than I know Wicket...
The only reason I looked at Wicket is because Apple made some very
strange decisions regarding licensing and support for other platforms
about a year ago. Should the open source rumors be true (I'm not sure
they are) I'll most likely go back
comparision?
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag
von Anders Peterson
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. August 2006 10:41
An: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
I know WebObjects much better than I
-user] WebObjects open source?
I know WebObjects much better than I know Wicket...
The only reason I looked at Wicket is because Apple made some
very strange decisions regarding licensing and support for
other platforms about a year ago. Should the open source
rumors be true (I'm not sure
:) It's one of my favorite parts of Wicket, so sure.
What about the strong points of WebObjects, what are the things you
really like about that?
Eelco
On 8/29/06, Anders Peterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, if it has to be just like Wicket to compete; you win. ;-)
Not sure what to say... it makes me productive...
It's not really fair to compare Wicket and WebObjects (WO). WO is a
whole package of frameworks and tools that function well together (but
can be used independently). Wicket needs team mates to replace WO entirely.
With Wicket any html and java
Start up the WOBuilder tool, create a WODisplayGroup instance and start
(visually) combining WOComponents and binding them to data. It's fastand intuitive...sounds like...i dont knowasp.net+vs.net combo? :)-Igor
-
Using
igor, Why don't you just start coding and make a WicketBuilder that just does that?instead of always making fun of people.. bad bad bad.johanOn 8/29/06,
Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Start up the WOBuilder tool, create a WODisplayGroup instance and start
(visually) combining WOComponents
hey! i wasnt making fun - just drawing a comparison. why are you so bitter? dont you have some bugs to fix?-IgorOn 8/29/06, Johan Compagner
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:igor,
Why don't you just start coding and make a WicketBuilder that just does that?instead of always making fun of people.. bad bad
Peterson
Gesendet: Dienstag, 29. August 2006 10:41
An: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Betreff: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
I know WebObjects much better than I know Wicket...
The only reason I looked at Wicket is because Apple made some
very strange decisions
maybe i am bitter because of all the bug fixing! havent you thought about that!But i really like to see the WicketBuilder that you build..Then i will fix the bugs you introduce in it (and that will make me happy ofcourse)
so we have a great Drag N Drop wicket ui builder. That generates everything
read about it here http://rayserv.upb.de/fiff/themen/IT-arbeit/PFIfF-IgorOn 8/29/06,
Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
maybe i am bitter because of all the bug fixing! havent you thought about that!But i really like to see the WicketBuilder that you build..Then i will fix the bugs you
instead of using some IDE's graphical
GUI-painter?)
/Frank
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anders
Peterson
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:51 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source?
Not sure
Apple will make (most of) WebObjects open source with the new release
(http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608webobjects.html).
Has anyone worked with WebObjects and wishes to comment on it compared
to Wicket?
Martijn
--
Download Wicket 1.2.2 now! New Ajax components: Tree, TreeTable and
42 matches
Mail list logo
