i dont think you have ever had a designer go in and edit php scripts from your applications :)
in the old times i have worked on tons of jsp projects where, even though we tried very hard to keep logic down to a minimum inside the jsp itself, the designers went in and completely foobarred it, often beyond repair. at least with wicket there is just the raw markup. the only things the designers have to watch out for is not to change any nesting of tags with wicket:id, but that is a trivial thing to to teach a dreamweaver monkey compared to all the idiosyncrasies of a jsp. i think what you are getting at is that there are two types of code: application and ui. and you prefer the ui code to be interpreted rather then compiled/deployed. that might work for simple apps, but wicket is usually used for intranets with complex uis where advantages of abstraction and compile time checkings outweigh that of a lightweight deployment. just my two cents. -igor On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:47 AM, Tobias Marx <[email protected]> wrote: > I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize > web-development in Java. > Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to find > out which framework is most > flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support this > project. > > So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. > > What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible to > write web applications that allow you to "create webapplications", meaning > that you can not read the "configuration" of a form from the database and > create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to implement > an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a configurable > community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. > > What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java > applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with > web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between > web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java application > as a product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug > fixes and new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is > expensive....everything has to be done by a software developer. > > An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never touched > again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features necessary.... but > in this time there could be several small changes or complete > re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing without > the need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new > strings.....or whatever....or maybe a new Flash component etc....this should > still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java code...only > changes in the templates or the database should be made. > > Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a web-application > you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know Java....they would be > really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another advantage of > Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no matter whether it > is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a logged in > user.... > > If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few > lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with > some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot > better. > > What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry > templates----? > > So far most of my projects are still good old PHP code....stupid but > efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can > always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging > for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any fundamental > changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to know in > detail...... > > So long... > > Toby > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 >> Von: Trevor Burnham <[email protected]> >> An: Tobias Marx <[email protected]> >> Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket > >> Hi Toby, >> >> I've been considering creating a new project that would split away >> from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, >> particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed for >> common use cases, to make things easier on designers, and to provide >> more seamless interoperability with other popular libraries (e.g. >> Spring). Do you think you might contribute to such a project? For now, >> I'm just testing to see if there's interest. >> >> Cheers, >> Trevor >> >> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Tobias Marx wrote: >> >> > Hi there! >> > >> > There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could >> > improve the framework a lot..... >> > >> > But just some small background first: >> > >> > In my opinion the most important things in a web application are: >> > >> > - as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary >> > >> > - separation of design and web application code and logic >> > >> > - if a webapplication changes in the design or some small items are >> > added this should be possible without needing a java developer.... >> > >> > >> > Therefore I would like to suggest more intelligent templates in >> > Wicket: >> > >> > 1. Pass parameters inside of wicket components eg: >> > >> > <div wicket:id="myComponent" paramA="blabla" paramB="blabla2"></div> >> > >> > and make them accessible in the Java code. >> > >> > This is a way to customize and reuse components purely by editing >> > templates >> > >> > >> > 2. Make Strings/Labels accessible directly in templates....to avoid >> > redundant code like this: >> > >> > add(new Label("indexTitle", .....) and instead allow to add >> > properties directly. >> > >> > 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in >> > the Java code: >> > >> > add(new LastPostsPanel("lastPostsPanel")); >> > add(new NewsPanel("newsPanel")); >> > >> > This could be matched automatically >> > >> > I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copy&paste >> > code...by improving templates.... >> > >> > Thanks for listening... >> > >> > Toby >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
