we did a performance comparison between wicket and jsf in january, and for our usecases wicket was the clear winner (about factor 4). wicket was nearly as fast as our old struts implementation. btw, we used wicket together with seam, which also did not add much to the execution times.
uwe. On Mon, Apr 27, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Peter Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > LOL at Jeremy's definitive quote :) > > Coming to original post - Munna: there is some comparative info on > performance and memory usage here: > > > http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/01/14/seam-jsf-vs-wicket-performance-comparison/ > > Hope this helps. > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Jeremy Thomerson < > [email protected] > > wrote: > > > Does this count? > > > > "It's really fast" - quote from Jeremy Thomerson in his email written > > Sunday, April 26. > > > > Sorry - couldn't resist a little laugh. I never put much faith in > > other people's "performance benchmarks" because they are typically > > little more than anecdotal evidence of their limited experience with X > > over Z. But here's my anecdotal "benchmark" - I've never debugged an > > application where Wicket was the *slow* part of the application. And > > I've debugged a lot of Wicket applications. It's always the DB layer. > > Occasionally something resource intensive in the service layer. But > > always the DB layer. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Thomerson > > http://www.wickettraining.com > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 26, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Munna Ramjee <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > Hi All, > > > Are there any performance benchmarks posted anywhere for Wicket? > > > Thanks in advance for the help. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Munna. > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > >
