what i got out of it is that two of things that he considers most important are
a) not having to recompile to see your changes this wont work for wicket. the closest you get to this are jsps that are recompiled when changed and do not depend on session state. after jsps there are frameworks that externalize state away from object instances, like tapestry 5, but even they break down sometimes because when you add fields those fields might need to be initialized to something meaningful. on the opposite end is wicket where we keep the entire object as it is in ram as state - a true pojo. even for wicket we have a reloading class loader that helps alleviate restarts at the price that it might introduce some very funky runtime behavior. b) have the least possible loc number this is completely not true for wicket. wicket is for coders, we do not try to optimize loc, and because we extensively use anonymous/inner classes which are wordy in java it doesnt help our loc counts. -igor On 2/5/07, Jon Steelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm not sure that Java is automatically excluded....I think it is more the albatross that is J2EE that has skewed things. Personally I suspect Wicket could make up some of the gap between the Java solutions and the non-Java. As food for thought, what I was wondering was whether some of his evaluation criteria were things that were worth considering as a positive future influence on Wicket or Wicket add-ons to make it more attractive to developers who think like Sean, to potentially broaden the base of Wicket users without diminishing its value to current users? Jon On 2/5/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've seen his screencast. Given his preferences, Wicket wouldn't rank > high on his list. We don't provide database access out of the box, and > he still would need to create/edit web.xml (though if he would use the > quickstart, that would help a lot). > > And we're a Java project which also excludes us from his preferences I guess. > > Regarding the martini's, I think Eelco is very good at consuming them, > not sure about his mixing qualities. > > Martijn > > On 2/5/07, Jon Steelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Have folks seen this interesting albeit lengthy screencast comparing > > web frameworks? > > http://seankelly.tv/videos/better-web-app-development > > > > Wicket wasn't part of the evaluation, but I would be very interested > > in how Wicket would fare if Sean Kelly had included it. How do you > > think Wicket would fare? Also, do you see anything from this > > screencast that could help improve Wicket? > > > > I took the liberty of emailing Sean about incorporating Wicket and > > offered him a beer to do so, and he came back with that it would take > > a couple of martinis to pique his interest. Anyone here good with > > martinis? > > > > Cheers, > > Jon
