----- Original Message -----
From: "Vadim Pesochinskiy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Tapestry users" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 5:55 PM
Subject: Re: Wicket vs Tapestry
I looked it, it is very impressive. User API is slick and slim -
easy to
learn, you do not need to read books, it is kind of
self-documented. Design
of internals borrows some ideas from Tapestry, I have seen
IRequestCycle and
other things. I did not spend enough time to say any more. My
consern is how
flexible it will be when you face things that are not supported
by
framework.
Actually, I think that Wicket could maybe be biggest Tapestry's competition,
not JSF.
Being totally java-oriented gives it some big advantages over others, though
it is still too young framework to judge. Since there are no XMLs, strong
typing is present everywhere.
Just for example what java orientation : Tapestry 4.0 introduced feature for
marking components and parameters as deprecated. Wicket doesn't need to. It
can use java standard deprecated mechanism. Subclassing Tapestry components
was problem because .jwc files couldn't be subclassed. Only with recent
annotations it could be done. Wicket don't need it, since everything is java
class, and standard subclassing will do. You don't need register component
to use it, you just put .jar into your classpath, and use like any other
class. And many others...
Don't want t sound like Wicket fan now, just pointing out to some
advantages. There are probably too many features missing, and also this
heavy session use that Wicket don't run away from, has yet to be proved I
guess.
-V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
