> The Play Framework has the right idea: stateless and restful. > No clunky components and over-engineered objected-oriented baggage. > > Play has some advantages but also shortcomings and presents significant risks. The transition from version 1 to version 2 will require re-writing the code. No migration possible! The new version seems to focus on scala (the views are now coded in scala instead of groovy). The business code can be in java and scala. What will happen to the java version in 2 years? Play's vision is a fully integrated technology stack with fairly fixed choices (JPA data access for java, Anorm - single layer over jdbc - for scala).
This is not the approach of wicket which is much more modular and simply treat the presentation layer. In short, there is no silver bullet ... just find the framework that best meets your needs.