Hi, this question has been asked here numerous times. The thing is, there is in fact no real alternative of wicket-ajax for us.
Wicket is not built about Ajax widgets.Wicket is about server-side components that can be partially updated using Ajax. That's a fundamental difference. As for the features, wicket-ajax has numerous advanced features such as - asynchronous pipeline that allows loading dependencies in asynchronous way, yet respecting the order (unlike e.g. dojo where the depending javascript are loaded using synchronous http requests which block entire browser = usability disaster) - ajax channels that allow you to stack or drop pending requests - multipart ajax response for replacing multiple components in one response, ajax header contribution processing (so that component can render header response as it would normally do, wicket transparently processes it and loads all dependencies (javascript references, stylesheets, etc) in an asynchronous way while respecting the order) - wicket-ajax.js is about 7kb compressed (with stripped down comments). As this is a general purpose ajax framework, the size matters. For sites where you using ajax only on certain places, having a 200kb javascript dependency would be quite a burden - there's more to it, the code is quite well documented, if you are interested you can dig into it, also you should search achives, this has been discussed here already. -Matej On 9/5/07, bmarvell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hello all, > > This is my first post so please be gentle ;) > > I'm a user interface developer (no Java) working on what will inevitably be > a fairly heavy Ajax wicket project. After looking at a number of Ajax > examples and pre built widgets I have to say I'm a little puzzled! Why does > wickets core JS framework not use one of the main JS frameworks that are > available such as jQuery, Dojo or Prototype? I believe you have a hand > rolled version of mootools (although I may be wrong). Do the Wicket core > team plan on supporting and enriching this hand rolled framework alone? > Surely it would make more sense to choose one of the main JS frameworks that > have dedicated teams of devs supporting it? > > Also I've found that Ajax widgets in wicket seem quite "here and there" in > their implementation. Some demos use prototype, some use YUI (a datepicker > for example). Doesnt this go against what JS frameworks are trying to > provide? Choosing a decent framework such as jQuery or Prototype will give > the developer a solid toolkit on which they can build, so extra components > such as datepickers or custom widgets can be applied as "Plugins". Sticking > to one framework reduces hits to the server, bandwidth, load and processing > times all of which imho are good things. > > My worry at the moment is that the demos in wicket are very "lets get it > working on the frontend" and not "lets think about a framework and its rich > functionality". > > SO to summarize :) are there any thoughts about using a single, supported > framework in wicket and moving forward from there? > > Cheers, > > Ben > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/JavaScript-Frameworks-tf4383060.html#a12494810 > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
