If you come here and try to start a flame about how bad Wicket is while you obviously have no clue how it works then atleast have the decency to write a propert post instead of a lame list of cons (and no pros) and a oneliner saying Spring MVC is the only other option...
Hielke -----Original Message----- From: Eric Kizaki [mailto:erickiz...@gmail.com] Sent: donderdag 17 november 2011 16:45 To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Apache Wicket is a Flawed Framework Violates Dry: You must repeat the component hierarchy of your widgets that are in HTML in Java Code for no good reason. If you move your widget around in the html it will break the Java and you get a stack trace if you change the nesting. You have to keep these two files synched. A JSP file is more maintainable. At least the view code is in one place. Not previewable: One of the supposed benefits of Wicket is a clean template that could make pages previewable for designers. First, we don't have seperate designers at my company. Second, it is better if the samer person does development and design. Third, if you use extends your page will not be priviewable outside an application server running Wicket. This supposed benefit does not exist. Violates MVC: It smashes view and controller code into the same Java file. You have code that regulates page flow and code that changes css attributes in the same file. Even Spring MVC had better separation of concerns. JSP/Servlets with Spring MVC is better. Excessively verbose and complicated: What is a LoadableDetachableModel? The learning curve for Wicket is immense. Breaks POJOS: A real POJO does not need to implement an interface or extend a class. Wicket forces your beans to be Serializable. This is like using EJBs in how it forced you to implement interfaces. Terrible AJAX: Compared to a few lines of jQuery AJAX is excessively complicated and verbose in Wicket. A lot of things like “AJAX” links should not be done via “AJAX” at all. Hiding a div on the client would simply be done with JavaScript on the client. Wicket better not require a server request for that. You also have no JSON support and good luck debugging any JavaScript or AJAX in Firefox. Instead you have to use the subpar Wicket debugging. HTML5: No support for HTML 5 form elements unless you upgrade to Wicket 1.5. You will get a stack trace. The upgrade to Wicket 1.5 is painful and will break your code. Good luck getting this to work with jQuery mobile. Bad Defaults: Most pages are stateless. The default for Wicket is stateful. So if I want a decent URL and a bookmarkable page I have to mount the page and use a bookmarkable page link with page parameters. Using page parameters is worse than how Spring MVC does binding. I have to keep doing this over and over for each page. There is too much work involved to get a decent stateless page with a nice URL. This should be the default. Interferes with other libraries: It screws up your jQuery code. It forces you into a restrictive way of doing web-development: the Wicket Way. 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. It is completely absurd. Only with JRebel is this alleviated. No, embedded Jetty in debug mode still slow. Even a simple JSP file has hot reloading on Tomcat and if I make a change to my view code the changes are immediately viewable in the browser when I refresh. This is WITHOUT JRebel. HTTPSession Objects are not hard: Most pages do not need state. If you do use HTTPSession it is simple. Can you use a map? Then you can use HTTPSession. This is less comlicated than most Wicket code. 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. It made something simple and made it overly complicated. This remind me of Hibernate and ORMS. I disagree that we should abstract things to this level and do everything in verbose Java. People are dropping Hibernate and going back to native SQL and Spring JDBC template. SQL and the relational model are easy. Working with HTTP requests is easy too. What was wrong with JSPs/Servlets? Keep it simple stupid. We know JSF was too complicated and it was terrible. Spring MVC is better and has rest support. It just works with Spring and has great support for the JSON Jackson mapper. -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Wicket-is-a-Flawed-Framework-tp4080411p4080411.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
