Igor, stop taking the piss... What he means is: Wicket is *NOT* an MVC framework...
On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 2:35 PM, Sven Meier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, in Wicket the markup doesn't do much (which is a good thing) besides > layout. If you're correctly using CSS, the markup isn't even responsible for > the look (and feel). > > I don't know if this qualifies it as a 'V' in MVC. > > Sven > > James Carman schrieb: > > On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 1:56 PM, Eelco Hillenius >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> I've been thinking about the way in which wicket is an MVC framework and >>>> whether people use it according to the MVC pattern. >>>> >>>> >>> The MVC pattern is bastardized - especially when it comes to web >>> application frameworks - up to the point that it is hardly useful to >>> use the term. Everyone seems to have their own interpretation. >>> >>> If you had to explain Wicket in MVC terms, my take would be that >>> components represent the Controller and View (together, just like >>> Swing), and the model is separated behind the IModel interface. But I >>> think it is better to just let the whole MVC mania behind us and >>> explain frameworks on their own terms :-) >>> >>> >> >> You could argue that the "view" is the markup file and the >> "controller" is the component/page class? >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > >
