On Fri, 2011-11-18 at 06:27 -0800, Eric Kizaki 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 did not bother to respond to the first e-mail, as there were way too
many points, which from my experience were incorrect and even strange
(ORM, JSP, etc). 
Beeing so happy with wicket during last couple years (last week finally
removed last traces of Struts/Spring MVC/JSP from applications), seemed
pointless to try to convince someone with so different view on things ;)

> I am sticking with Wicket because it is required for work.  I am able to do
> stuff in it but it seems unnecessarily complicated.

Depends on what you are doing.  In Wicket I am doing things I never
considered in SpringMVC, as they were too cumbersome and
ugly to get working and then maintain them ,,, 

>   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 started without any wicket books. Now I own two, but to be honest -
have not red them from cover to cover. There is sufficient 
information in mailing lists + Javadoc + wicket examples, + WIKI, but I
would agree, it could be improved. Learning curve for wicket is not
small, but it is objective. It is not reasonable to pick up UI
lframework  as quickly as JSP or velocity.

>   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.

Yeah. For the beginners it would probably be helpful. Then again -
wicket examples cover most components.

> 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.

Same here, After Struts, I considered JSF, but after a week and still
not getting the magic of JSF lifecycle I just gave up ...

>  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.

Spring MVC is nice in its simplicity. So, for simple things, I like it.
Problem starts, when you need something more complicated.  And page
logic in templates is a nightmare, especially for maintenance. Velocity
does not help very much, as IDE tool support is very basic. 

> 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.

I would agree with this in pre-wicket days. With wicket this is not true
any more. And this is what wicket
 is all about - OO in web development. 

Reply via email to