Sven Meier wrote: > > It's funny how you combine Wicket (i.e. open source) and "vendor lock-in", > two antithetic terms I'd never put together in a single sentence. > Please search "lock" in the following post for arguments: > > http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2009/05/15/jsf-sucks/ > > If you choose JSF, all what's guaranteed is crappy support from your > implementation (IBM at least), EOL policy, migration after migration and > "vendor lock-in". > > My 2 cents > Sven >
That's why it's written as "vendor lockin", not vendor lockin. Perhaps framework lockin would have been better. To put it simply, when I choose JSF or wicket I create a permanent, hard to change, binding to that technology. - with wicket there's no 100% guarantee that the framework will be supported after a week, month or a year - with JSF there are commercial application servers that guarantee certain number of years of support when you buy their product. Whether that support is indeed "crappy" or not is up to debate and may vary between different products. With the increased amount of AJAX and increased role of the framework the support-issue seems more relevant than before. What happens when new browser versions, and new iphone/ipad/iwhatever terminals are released in 2013 and the old AJAX javascripts stop working or start working wrong? That's only once aspect of the choice but nevertheless it's a valid one. And it's just about evaluating technologies, there's no need to be emotional about it (pages titled "JSF sucks" seem silly). -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-vendor-lockin-and-backwards-compatibility-1-4-1-5-tp2226109p2229828.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
