> > > > > > All of my page views were done without a session, and it seems that > Wicket's > > raw performance advantage will only increase when the session comes into > > play. I understand that will come at the cost of scalability via > clustering > > and memory consumption, though. I do agree that there are many details > that > > need to be taken into account. > > > > I don't follow you here; I don't see a reason why adding a HttpSession > to the mix would affect either framework more than the other ... until > you hit a cluster, then T5 should (in theory) have an advantage.
I extrapolated that from this, from the front tapestry 5 page: --- Tapestry does not need to store page instances inside the HttpSession. At most, it stores a smattering of *persistent field values* from the page, but not the entire page instance. This lean use of the HttpSession is key to Tapestry's very high scalability, especially in a clustered configuration. In some Tapestry-like frameworks, such as Faces and Wicket, the page structure is more dynamic, at the cost of storing much, much more data in the HttpSession. --- I'd imagine that would have at least a slight space/time tradeoff? (no need to grab anything from a page pool at the cost of expensive replication). Maybe negligible, though..? Now that I think of in, in Wicket there's a lot of direct use of "new", so I probably had the wrong idea. Neil
