On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Arjun Dhar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > I've been experimenting with "Play" and Scala. Very agile and theoretically > fast with Netty. > Read some benchmarks that did not show Wicket too well, however from a > development/templating perspective I still cannot rationalize a better > framework than wicket. > > Wickets Session and Request classes do not extend any Servlet Spec; which > gives me the impression there is some thinking in allowing wicket to run in > a container less environment. ..maybe am over thinking. But if not, one for > the Dev team to think and support I guess. > > I'd be really interested to mash things up with Wicket & Play, as few things > about Play are uncomfortable to get around conceptually. Too early to > comment, but I also feel Play's default templating style sucks. > ...And for product development, a component oriented approach does have > benefits, while Play seems to under-play! > > ..Anyone playing with Wicket without a traditional servlet container? wickettester? ;)
> > ----- > Software documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; > and when it is bad, it is still better than nothing! > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-a-containerless-environment-tp4536820p4536820.html > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > -- thank you, regards, Vineet Semwal --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
