heikki wrote:
> - and in my opinion the stuff you need to do to achieve "normal" URLs (no
> ?, no version number, no nothing) is just a pain. *Every* URL, for
> stateless or stateless pages or whatever, should be "normal", otherwise it
> is just not acceptable -- users never want to see those
> complicated-looking URLs under any circumstance

Here I totally agree. I think there are very few developers who understand
this. An URL is a technical entity, and, if they had a choice, the vast
majority of internet-users could very well do without it.
URL's are /not/ user friendly.

It's better now, but in the early days it was very cumbersome to help my >80
father (y'all understand >80, I presume) on the phone: 'No, dad, just type

I really think this is a flaw in wicket, caused by a collective blank spot
of it's otherwise very clever developers.

But I really love Wicket, I managed to develop a quite complex application
that's robust and easy to use, and it's only my second web application ever,
the first being a Servlet with html-spawning only...

View this message in context: 
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

Reply via email to