>Breaks POJOS: A real POJO does not need to implement an interface or >extend a class.
A object oriented framework is a foundation on which you extend your application. Back in the C++ world there was MFC, OWL, .Net, etc., In the Java world there was AWT and then Swing etc.,. All event driven, object oriented component based frameworks. All were pretty easy to build desktop applications in. Most of an application's UI elements extended from core classes in the framework. That's just how you use OO frameworks. If you want to write UI elements that do not extend or implement classes of interfaces of a 'framework' then you're not really using any framework and reinventing the wheel. >Bad Defaults: Most pages are stateless. Every page in our app is stateful. We show the username of the current user at the top of the page after logging on and we also have a panel on the right that shows alerts specific to the current user. Sure the main content of each page is not delivered differently per user but many of the auxiliary components are. >Causes a redeploy whenever you add anything: Maybe Java developers are >used to this, but in any other web development environment I do not need to >redeploy after adding a text box to the page. We use a component resolver. That can make it possible for the HTML markup to drive the component hierarchy without explicitly adding components in Java code each time you want to add a new component. >Stateful Component based framework are a terrible idea: Even at the >theoretical level this is a bad idea. It is a leaky abstraction over a >simple request/response cycle. My examples of desktop app frameworks above were all event driven, object oriented, component based frameworks. This model evolved to be *universal* in the desktop world for a good reason - it's a damn fine architecture IMHO and obviously in the opinion of the rest of the world of desktop application developers. Einstein said, "Make something as simple as possible but not too simple". Request/response is just too simple to be useful for anyone who has come through from the desktop application world and 'gets' event driven, object oriented component based architectures. When I moved from desktop to web development I went CGI, servlets, JSPs, Struts, Echo and now Wicket. Until I started using Echo & Wicket my web app days were never as fun or 'clean' as ye olde desktop app days. For me Wicket is the ONLY web UI framework that gives me the same kind of development productivity and clean, reusable application source code that I enjoyed in the desktop app development world. >It made something simple and made it overly complicated. This remind me of Hibernate and ORMS. Yeah, ok, if you're not using an ORM in your apps by now and still spending your days writing SQL glue code then we need to have a talk ;) Chris --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
