One of the requirements here is to support old browsers and browsers with JS disabled...
I'd have liked to have a go at using the gwt html project even though it is very, very new but that was seen as way too scary. John Krasnay wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 03:07:21AM -0700, Sam Hough wrote: >> >> Taking as a basic assumption that the reason we want GWT or Wicket is to >> do >> almost all our logic in Java and Wicket is in full Ajax mode: >> >> 1) In GWT a lot of the UI logic can be moved to the client. e.g. If a >> user >> changes focus GWT can call event handlers, authored in Java, that update >> the >> UI without any server interaction. >> 2) Wicket Ajax is single threaded (Sjax) so the user can't fire off more >> than one server request at a time. In GWT you could have two server >> threads >> working for a user. One that could be slow but not block the UI. >> 3) GWT has less work to do because it doesn't need to map events on the >> client to the server. It stays in the DOM so just attaches event handlers >> without having to map them to/from the server. >> 4) Rendering the UI is all done on the client so your server requirements >> are much lower. >> > > Wow, GWT sure sounds great! Why are you still using Wicket? > > jk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Questions-about-GWT%2C-JSF-and-Wicket-tf4514338.html#a12879746 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
