The wiki has a list of some web sites that use Wicket. http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/websites-based-on-wicket.html
A quick search of IBM shows approx 1,080 articles on Wicket: http://www.google.com/search?q=site:ibm.com+wicket Scott On Thu, Jan 7, 2010 at 4:43 PM, Lester Chua <cicowic...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I am facing a hurdle that need crossing in my final attempt to push Wicket > for use in an organization. > I have: > > 1) Prototyped a small size module > 2) Did 2-3 presentations on the key features and advantages of wicket > > No one is disputing my claims about productivity and good OO code that was > the result. > > BUT, the technology evaluation committee is NOT recommending Wicket because > of..... of all things..... > - Wicket's Low Adoption Rate!!!! > Can I find any numbers to blow this away? > > My alternative is to accept the finding and work with Struts 2. Which will > mean the stack will need to expand to DWR > (for security). I REALLY don't want to go there, and am even considering not > taking part in this project due to the high risk involved, only 9 months to > introduce huge changes to a system that has lots of legacy problems (took > about 3 years to build). I think a lot of those years were spent wrestling > with the monster that is EJB 1.1. The only way I thought the project can > even be on time is to scrap the entire presentation layer (aka Struts) and > redo it in Wicket with 1 dedicated developer while the rest of the team work > on killing the beast that is EJB 1.1 by refactoring the biz code. > > Sigh, my choices are stark. It's either to keep the job and plough ahead and > probably fail spectacularly 9 months later or go hungry and explain to my > wife why we need to spend less on the kid...... > > It's easy to blame the tech committee but they did help me find wicket by > rejecting my initial proposal to build the new system on a > (JQuery+JSON+REST) framework, which can be very productive as well, if not > as "clean" as Wicket. > > Sorry for rambling so much. Is there any way I can demolish the silly low > adoption rate argument (omg I still don't believe it can be so lame)? > > Lester > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
