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
rge.net
Subject: 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
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 HTM
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 n
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 = session
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.
http://www.omnig
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?
http://developer.
-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 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 chosen
The _Java_ code is cleaner and simpler with Web
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
syntax than HTML.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECT
> > 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 declarat
> 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
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 contain
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,
>
> 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
-
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 t
- 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 cleaner
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
> ;))
>
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 gmail.com> writes:>> Apple will make (most of) WebObjects open source wi
Martijn Dashorst 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 compare the
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 conne
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
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-us
nt with its own API?
-Original Message-
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 faci
Though WO components/ storage itself might be more efficient. I think
looking at their code is more useful than a guessing game :)
Eelco
> i think wicket's versioning approach is better here for a few reasons: it
> supports browser's cache, and it only stores undo history which is typically
> mu
on most Swing GUI programmers end up> > > building their GUI in code instead of using some IDE's graphical
> > > GUI-painter?)> >> > Most people just don't want to change their way of doing things (and> > some graphical GUI-painters are not very good).> >> >
ers are not very good).
> >
> > You seem to think there is only a fixed and limited set of components to
> > work with - why assume something like that?
> >
> > /Anders
> >
> > > -Original Message-
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > &
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.
>
> i
MAIL 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 not really fair to
only a fixed and limited set of components to
work with - why assume something like that?
/Anders
> -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.sou
WicketBuilder would have to generate java code - right?
WOBuilder only generates snippets like this in a separate file:
String2: WOString {
value = [EMAIL PROTECTED]@count;
numberformat = "___,__0";
}
"wicket:id": "ComponentClassName" {
"list of bindings"
}
/Anders
Joh
ur opinion is superior to Wicket from
>> WebObjects ? e.g. a small comparision?
>>
>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag
>>> von Anders Peterson
>>> Gesendet: Dienstag, 29.
code 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?
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 int
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 b
; 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
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
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 WOComponent
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 Tom
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
:) 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. ;-)
>
-
>>> Korbinian
>>>
>>> PS: can you point out what in your opinion is superior to Wicket from
>>> WebObjects ? e.g. a small comparision?
>>>
>>>> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
>>>> Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> [mailt
t;
>
> /Anders
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Korbinian
> >
> > PS: can you point out what in your opinion is superior to Wicket from
> > WebObjects ? e.g. a small comparision?
> >
> >> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> >> Von: [
ket from
> 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
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 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 t
45 matches
Mail list logo
