> I know Wicket makes it very easy to develop components and there are some > component libraries (e.g. Wicket Stuff) but it doesn't seem like there are > as many (high level components) as Django or that they are as easy to > integrate (that's just my perception).
I don't know about Django, but I think Wicket comes with quite a number of reusable components. And as I believe that you typically want to customize components for your own use anyway, I think it is more important that it is easy to create them than to have them readily available. Anyway, are there any components you miss that e.g. Django has but Wicket hasn't? > So when I was looking at the Wikipedia comparison on Web frameworks I > noticed something. There doesn't seem to be a pull (component-based) Web > framework that uses a dynamic programming language (like Groovy, Ruby or > Python). Grok seems too left field. > > Django, RoR and Grails are all push (request-based) Web frameworks and, as I > mentioned above, use template languages to varying degrees. So I was > thinking a pull (component-based) Web framework like Wicket but using a > dynamic language could be a great move. I don't agree with the classification. That whole article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_application_framework) isn't very well written imho. I made this comment on the wiki-talk page: "== Push vs Pull should go == I've seen these terms - push and pull - used before in discussions, but not everyone agrees on what they mean. I certainly don't. With Velocity for instance, you need to 'push' something in the context before you can use it, but after that, the object and everything it references is available for whatever operation, which is more of a pull. In fact, Velocity tools are purely 'pull'. Also, Struts is being classified as a push framework, and Velocity as pull, but you can use Velocity as a view layer of Struts. Whether a framework is 'component oriented' has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is push or pull, but rather with the ability to break up functionality on 'pages' into smaller, independent 'components'. Finally, the reference that is used for the push vs pull explanation is a public forum; the opinions of a few random people of that site hardly justifies being referenced to here. That article would be much better without the whole push vs pull thing." > A quick Google showed me that some work has been done with Groovy > (wicket-contrib-groovy) and the WicketBuilder by Kevin Galligan. However, > Kevin seems to have moved on to Seam and wicket-contrib-groovy seems to be > no longer supported. I couldn't find that he moved on, but it is possible the project isn't maintained anymore. However, the integration is pretty simple to achieve, and it might even be best for your case to build a set of utilities (as that's pretty much what you need to make the integration work if I understand it correctly) that suit your needs. > So what do people think about Groovy and Wicket? I think you should be able to use Groovy just fine if you want. And other dynamic languages should work as well as long as they run on the JVM and can cooperate with regular Java classes. You could take a look at the integration that Grails has for Wicket. That will let you use Groovy with Wicket, but also provides a RoR-like rad framework. Cheers, Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
