I think it would be exhausting and possibly risky to rely on the appeal of the Wicket site. This appeal can already be provided by third party sites that use Wicket. A developer can then choose to show management a selection of sites that are relevant in context.
What drives adoption rate is development efficiency, meeting deadlines and ease of deployment. Sure in small markets it is difficult to find developers for Wicket, but it is not difficult to convince a manager with the prospect of an earlier completion date even if a couple of developers have to be trained (or may not have to be trained because they can focus on HTML). It is not very difficult to convince managers of that. So what is wrong? Why is it not working? I can't provide the full answer. But to feel confident about meeting deadlines, I would like to see improvements in the following areas: 1) Better support of statelessness in general 2) Some stateless AJAX if possible, even if only in basic cases with constraints say for auto-complete text fields 3) Transition from stateless pages to statful pages 4) Recovery from loss of state. Is implemented but it does not work. So while after so many years, we don't have that, I can only confidently recommend to use Wicket if users are allowed to have 10 hour web sessions (I have been there), or the users are already used to be kicked out after x minutes like in some online banking sites. Most users today are used to remember-me cookies. So how do we explain to them that a page expired while they can "prove" that they were still signed in? Bernard On Tue, 5 Feb 2013 19:52:18 +1100, you wrote: >>your loosing the focus pretended to be justify before: "marketing", >>not tech. and many people "first see", later "think" :) > >I think the problem is that most good software engineers see 'beauty' in >the elegant component based, object oriented architecture of Wicket - we >can all go "oooh" and "aaaah" just thinking about how truly beautiful >Wicket has been 'engineered'. > >We see beauty beyond the external presentation. > >People out in the real world however, or developers who don't get the >"oooh/aaah" value from elegant design and architecture, are usually >'beauty is only skin deep' people - and given then don't care about >elegant engineering 'under the hood' their evaluation of the 'goodness' >of something is based totally on the appearance of the 'skin'. > >I think we have to grasp the concept that there are two different types >of people and they're on opposite ends of the spectrum - the less >'engineering' someone is the more they crave 'funky look and feel'. > >Because of the above, and maybe I'm going out on a limb here, IMHO >Wicket's much wider adoption is totally reliant on improving the Wicket >website's 'looks' to newcomers on their first visit. > >Regards, >Chris > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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
