That's actually interesting you feel that way because I was just making the comment that I was surprised at how little hate was being displayed. Sure there are a couple here and there, but par for the internet is far, far lower (higher? maybe a golf analogy was a bad idea) than what we're seeing here. And, in fact, many people did attempt to address specific issues. However, you can't really expect sunshine and rainbows when the initial post says nothing positive whatsoever and offers no suggestions for improvement. This more recent post, however, I like so much better because you actually get into specific instances where there is room for improvement and link to a potential guide for a solution.
I would definitely agree with you that something like the spring petclinic would be really handy. I, personally, can't count the number of times I found myself "doing it wrong" because I hadn't known to look at the javadoc in that other class over there (I'm looking at you, ListView vs DataTable). One of the largest strengths of wicket is its flexibility, but it tends to come at the cost of there being too many ways to do something. That makes it difficult to know which is the "right" way to accomplish the task. Until you really get to know wicket, it definitely feels a bit like you need to learn the secret handshakes and hidden incantations to make it do something as simple as showing feedback properly in a repeating view. There are a lot of us here that have gone through (and still going) that learning curve and could probably contribute to a large sample application that shows "how to do stuff". Additionally, I believe work on Wicket 6 has officially started, so if there are concrete suggestions for improvement, I bet Jira would love to record them for you. Is Wicket perfect? No, no framework is. But it's getting better and the more help it has, the better it will get. On Fri, Nov 18, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Eric Kizaki <erickiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > I was not expecting so much hate. I guess now I am infamous in the Java > world now. Look, it is just my opinion. Not many people actually stopped > to address many of my points. They just immediately bashed me. > > I am sticking with Wicket because it is required for work. I am able to do > stuff in it but it seems unnecessarily complicated. I own the “Wicket in > Action” book and “Enjoying Web Development with Wicket Book” by Kent Ka Iok > Tong. The second book is much more practical. Without these books I would > not be able to do anything in Wicket. That is why I did not mention > documentation. I would prefer to just be able to check out something like > this http://static.springsource.org/docs/petclinic.html. This is a real > working application that shows how to do things with databases etc. With > Wicket, I had to string a bunch of snippets together and read two books. I > am still not sure I am doing things the best way. > > To people who say I am inexperienced, I have tried JSF and GWT. Wicket is > better than both of those. JSF has an invasive and complicated lifecycle. > When I saw the lifecycle diagram I just stopped even looking into it. GWT > uses terrible Swing style layouts and all these crappy interfaces for RPC. > There was also no real help on the server. At least with Wicket I can > still > use HTML and CSS for my layouts. However, these component based frameworks > are still way too complicated for a simple task: building a web page. In > my humble opinion Spring MVC done right (no scriplets) with JSTL & EL and > jQuery is better than Wicket. You can also use Velocity templating. I > have > also used Swing to build desktop apps. I would not say Swing is a shining > example of how to build GUIs. I thought it was pretty bad, verbose, and > impractical. The Play Framework has the right idea: stateless and > restful. > No clunky components and over-engineered objected-oriented baggage. > > Here is a quote from the Restlet page > (http://www.restlet.org/about/introduction): > “While powerful for complex centralized models, the object-oriented > paradigm > isn't always the best suited for Web development. Java developers need > realize this and start thinking more RESTfully when developing new Web > servers or new AJAX-based Web clients. The Restlet project is providing a > simple yet solid foundation that can get you started right away on the Web > 2.0.” > - Jérôme Louvel, Restlet founder > Maybe you can look up his Linkdin and start bashing him too. Oh no he said > object-oriented is not the Holy Grail! > > I am definitely in the “I like to hand-code HTML, CSS, and Javascript” > camp. > I even like hand-coding SQL. I get complete control. These are all pretty > easy languages; most of them are declarative. They are easier than Java. > I > know most Java developers do not feel this way and want to just do > everything in Java. I think you should use the best tool for the job. > Java > is a mediocre tool to use in every domain. > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Wicket-is-a-Flawed-Framework-tp4080411p4083476.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 > >
