Really, is this what you do, go around posting to user lists of frameworks you don't like? I imagine one can have a full time job doing that.
Eelco On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Eric Kizaki <erickiz...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
