Make some noise about this (stupid) decision and when the higher management
realize the mistake they made they will ask you ;-)

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting


On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 3:11 PM, Richard W. Adams <rwada...@up.com> wrote:

> Whether the reasons are valid or not irrelevant. I only passed along what
> I have heard; don't necessarily agree with the rationales. As I said, I
> was not consulted (and probably never will be).
>
>
>
>
> From:   Paul Bors <p...@bors.ws>
> To:     "users@wicket.apache.org" <users@wicket.apache.org>
> Date:   01/03/2014 12:16 PM
> Subject:        Re: Rationale for Converting to AngularJS/Spring MVC
>
>
>
> Both reasons provided don't carry much wight.
>
> 1) Dificulty of maintanance/upgrading between major releases
>     Our webapp was our reporting tool which morphed into a system
> administative tool currently with 54k lines of code in well over 1k public
> classes (conform Sonar). I migrated the webapp from Wicket 1.3.x to 6.x by
> myself in under 2 weeks simply by following the migration tutorials one by
> one.
>
> 2) Cost of tranning new developers
>     Wicket itself is model much after the Java's Swing and it promotes
> fast
> adaptation for new developers (they teach Swing in college). Perhaps the
> new staff should consider spending 1 to 2 weeks reading one of the many
> books avaialble on Wicket, see:
> http://wicket.apache.org/learn/books/
>
> I spent a good 3-4 weeks reading over Andreas' free guide whcih took so
> long because I was reading it a chpater a day on the subway ride to work
> while at the same time proof reading his new material. You can print the
> free guide via:
> http://wicket.apache.org/start/userguide.html
>
> I don't know AngualrJS too much as I never worked with it. To me it looks
> like another JS framework out there in the mixture of many that can very
> easily be integrated with Wicket. Perhaps you should suggest that to your
> upper management.
>
> Anyhow, that's my two cents.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Richard W. Adams <rwada...@up.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't have first hand knowledge of the decision making process, but I
> > understand there were two main factors:
> >
> > 1.  Difficulty in changing/maintaining the intermediate corporate
> > libraries, especially when considering whether to make the leap from
> > Wicket 1.4.17 to 6.x.
> >
> > 2. A perception of excessive cost in training new developers to use
> > Wicket. I myself am fairly comfortable with Wicket now (after 2 years
> > experience), but have to admit  the leaning curve was pretty steep.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From:   Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <reier...@gmail.com>
> > To:     users@wicket.apache.org
> > Date:   01/03/2014 10:58 AM
> > Subject:        Re: Converting Wicket to AngularJS/Spring MVC
> >
> >
> >
> > May I ask what was the rationale of choosing Angular JS + Spring MVC
> over
> > Wicket? I have been using Backbone + Spring MVC in a project, imposed by
> > client, for the last month and to be honest I'm not impressed with
> > productivity you achieve using the combination: not to mention that
> > developers need to know both JavaScript + Java server side to be
> > completely
> > productive. IMHO this will impact your productivity in a negative way.
> The
> > only "reason" I could see to make that move is if scalability is an
> issue.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Ernesto
> >
> >
> >
> > **
> >
> > This email and any attachments may contain information that is
> > confidential and/or privileged for the sole use of the intended
> recipient.
> >  Any use, review, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance by
> others,
> > and any forwarding of this email or its contents, without the express
> > permission of the sender is strictly prohibited by law.  If you are not
> the
> > intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately, delete the
> > e-mail and destroy all copies.
> > **
> >
>
>
>
> **
>
> This email and any attachments may contain information that is
> confidential and/or privileged for the sole use of the intended recipient.
>  Any use, review, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance by others,
> and any forwarding of this email or its contents, without the express
> permission of the sender is strictly prohibited by law.  If you are not the
> intended recipient, please contact the sender immediately, delete the
> e-mail and destroy all copies.
> **
>

Reply via email to