I guess that's personal. I switched from Struts to Maverick/ Baritus because Struts couldn't do proper bean population/ conversion with fine grained error reporting. I hated the ammount of plumbing I had to do with Struts. I would hate to do a lot of hand work with Wicket too. For me one of the major attraction points in Wicket is the IModel concept and all the code savers like default form processing and error reporting, compound property models, etc.
I do think however, that Wicket should support the non-automatic approach just as well. We had a lot of improvements from 1.0 to 1.1 to support that, like the template methods that are in Form now (that's what you mean with the call back methods right?). I agree that the automatic stuff/ implicit behaviour makes the framework harder to understand. That's a pitty. It's the trade-off between the ammount of code needed for getting things done (about which we had a zillion complaints before 1.0) and the code saving automatic things. I remember ranting against the <wicket:link> facility as I thought it would make Wicket harder to understand (still do btw), but as a user am I glad it was implemented as it saves me writing code. We try to get the best of both worlds, but not everyone will be equally happy. Best thing you can do is point to specific areas you'd want to see improved and make concrete suggestions for it. Cheers, Eelco On 10/3/05, Michael Jouravlev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hate to repeat this again, It feels to me that Wicket has too much > default processing and callbacks. I would prefer things to be simpler. > Hit a button - call a button handler. Submitted form without button - > call default handler. And do whatever you want from this handler: call > form's submit, validation, model, etc. Is not it simpler and more > observable? Or is it just Struts legacy? ;-) > > Michael. > > On 10/3/05, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > that you don't know in the submit of the form if a button did process it or > > not. > > we could give the Form.onSubmit() a boolean that a button was found? > > > > > > On 10/3/05, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > I don't like controlling that kind of processing with boolean return > > > values. What's wrong with the current state implementation of Form? > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by: > Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, > and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Power Architecture Resource Center: Free content, downloads, discussions, and more. http://solutions.newsforge.com/ibmarch.tmpl _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
