> Sorry, I used the wrong term there. I didn't mean specifically components > as in "parts of a dynamic Web page" but rather what Django calls > "applications" (which really are components in the more general sense of the > word - how's that for confusing ;-). > > Django Web applications can be composed of a number of (smaller) > applications (basically another subdirectory in the site directory). AFAIK, > these can be complete high-level functionality (e.g. email-confirmation for > registration, surveys, feeds etc).
Actually, you can build such 'applications' as components in Wicket. That's the beauty of the fact that Wicket's components are truly self contained. State, navigation, you name it, everything can be put in components and it doesn't leak to outside unless you design it that way. Develop a registration component, survey component, feeds component and put it in any page, together with any combination of components you want. This is t h e w h o l e i d e a with Wicket's components :-) > I guess these could be done with Wicket add-on frameworks (i.e. JARs) but I > just don't see that many (please correct me if I am wrong) at this level. If there's any framework that let's you develop mini-applications seamlessly, it's Wicket. The availability of such components is another matter. > Also, I can't see a high-level automatic and customisable admin/CRUD > interface for Wicket like there is for Django. Not sure what you're looking for, but something like http://wicketwebbeans.sourceforge.net/ or http://sourceforge.net/projects/wicket-rad? > Please don't misunderstand me, I am not criticising Wicket - I think it is > fantastic, I'm just trying to understand why it may / needs to lack the RAD > and large-scale functionality reuse that something like Django seems to > provide. I really think it's just a matter of what we want to focus on. With 'we' I mean the core team and community here that works on Wicket. I don't know Django well, but RoR for instance is very focussed on the RAD part. Wicket doesn't aim to be a RAD development framework, but instead provides a framework that is extensible so you or other people can build stuff like that on top of it. Personally I believe that RAD stuff is nice to score projects and show some quick results, but I care way way more about the longer term. If I can scale a development team and if the project still is easy to get around in and refactor half a year down the line. > Push to me are request-oriented or (type 2) controller-driven frameworks, > e.g. where the URL drives a controller which produces the page. I don't want to be blunt, but I just think that the push-pull classification is too vague and arbitrary to be in that WIKI article. In this case, it's perfectly fine to speak about for instance 'front controller'/ 'web mvc' or 'model 2' (which is kinda the official term Sun gave it a long time ago) frameworks rather than pull-push. The way I've seen pull-push being used in the context of discussions about frameworks, it always referred to model 2 frameworks and more importantly to frameworks that allow some scripting in templates, and in that case, 'pull' refers to lazy evaluation whereas 'push' means everything has to be calculated up-front. The only somewhat agreeable piece on this - imho - is http://www.antlr.org/wiki/display/ST/Introduction. But imho, the pull vs push thing is relevant for a framework like Wicket (or GWT or Echo for that matter). >> I couldn't find that he moved on, but it is possible the project isn't >> maintained anymore. > > He has confirmed to me via email that he has moved to using Seam. Ok. Seam with JSF, or Seam with Wicket? Seam ships with Wicket support nowadays :-) > I will have another look but from what I understand Grails is like Django / > RoRs another push Web framework that focuses on mapping URLs to controller > methods. From what I see, the Wicket integration either requires you to use > Java or extras classes in Groovy. I really don't know enough about Grails to say :-) You could check with them. > Personally I still think there is room for a Web framework that is: > + fully component-based, > + pull-oriented (but allowing push for when it is useful), > + full separation between HTML and application (like Wicket does), > and allows one to use a dynamic language (for RAD). Something based on > Groovy (because of its close ties to Java) and Wicket (because of its great > approach and separation) would be very elegant and powerful. I think it is a matter of building on a framework like Wicket. Why start over again? The whole idea of components is that you make something more complex out of simpler parts. And there's really no end to what you can do with that (within the confines of web applications obviously). Cheers, Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
