Thanks for your work ! I really enjoyed reading the MEAP, looking forward to re-reading the dead-tree version.
Maarten On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Nick Heudecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All interesting points. Thanks for clarifying. > > On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Toto Laricot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Nick Heudecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >wrote: >> >> > Why did you move away from Seam? >> >> >> It was a project for one of our clients. They let us pick the technology. >> We >> first selected SEAM because we thought it would be easier for the client >> to >> take over the code once the app would switch to maintenance mode (JSF is a >> standard, wicket is still an obscure framework, yadayadayada...). >> We developed the first 75% with SEAM. Everything worked great >> (functionally >> speaking), the client was happy, but the code was hard to follow (xml >> config >> files, triggers, etc.), the compile/test cycles were very long, the project >> structure was too complex (we use maven: we needed 3 different modules to >> produce the final ear file). >> So, without telling the customer (and without charging them) we ported the >> project to wicket. Huge win: >> - Simpler code >> - shorter compile/test cycle (with wicket we're launching the app with >> embedded jetty during development) >> - shorted learning curve: it's easier to bring a developer up to speed on >> a wicket project that it is on a jboss/seam one. >> - amazing support through the form >> >> >> I'm not saying SEAM is a bad framework. It might even be better than >> Wicket, >> or better suited for some environments. But one thing is certain: it's a >> lot more complex to master. >> >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
