Hi Wilko,

Attaching source and Javadoc to my IDEA user library is of course the 
first thing I did ;-). However, it is not always sufficient! For the 
time being, life is a constant struggle, facing one problem after 
another. It's very easy to forget all the bad things about Struts and 
remember only how easy it was. (In fact, it was horrible.) The main 
advantage of Struts was that I was paid to learn it! Switching to Wicket 
was my personnal choice and I hope it will be rewarding in the end!

Cheers,

Pierre-Yves

Wilko Hische a écrit :
> Hey Pierre-Yves,
> 
> I have to admit it was new experience to me too, to have to resort to the
> source & javadocs for examples and framework alike, but now that I am used
> to it (and have attached source & apidocs to my Eclipse wicket user library
> ;-) I don't think it's that bad.
> I rather prefer it to having to struggle through for instance Tapestry in
> Action* over and over again.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wilko
> 
> *) I hope Wicket in Action will turn out to be a bit more functional btw
> 
> 
> Pierre-Yves Saumont wrote:
>> I will also by the book as soon as it is available... unless I give up 
>> before :-(
>>
>> Pierre-Yves
>>
>> James Cook a écrit :
>>> I wouldn't be too quick to judge developers that struggle with your 
>>> platform to be new to _good_ java programming. I have many years of 
>>> Swing development experience and web experience dating back to the 
>>> pre-servlet, pre-framework era. That said, Wicket does interest me 
>>> because it is radically different that the page-based frameworks *and* 
>>> JSF-based component frameworks available today.
>>>
>>>  From my own experience, I would say the hardest part about _using_ 
>>> Wicket is _learning_ Wicket. There is a hodgepodge of documentation 
>>> scattered in a lot of different places. You are transitioning to a new 
>>> version, and without a good collection of documents/best practices it 
>>> seems a bit hopeless at times.
>>>
>>> Your Wicket in Action book is many months off. Hopefully it is geared 
>>> for Wicket 2.0. Also, perhaps you can get Manning to release it in their 
>>> early access program. I know I would buy it today if a few initial 
>>> chapters were available online.
>>>
>>> -- jim
>>>
>>> On 8/6/06, *Eelco Hillenius* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
>>> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     I'd like to add to that that Wicket requires you to know your Java,
>>>     while e.g. using JSP allows to build whole web sites with hardly any
>>>     Java knowledge. Whether that is a good thing or not is debatable.
>>>
>>>     Eelco
>>>
>>>
>>>     On 8/6/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>>      > What were/ are the problems you are experiencing Pierre-Yves?
>>>      >
>>>      > Usually the largest obstacle for people with Wicket (and Tapestry,
>>>      > Echo and GWT for that matter) is getting rid of the bad practices
>>>     they
>>>      > got used to when working with frameworks like Struts etc. A lot of
>>>      > people learned programming Java web apps on frameworks like that,
>>>     and
>>>      > never got much of the OO part. Otoh, if you're coming from e.g.
>>> Swing
>>>      > programming, Wicket should be easier for you.
>>>      >
>>>      > Wicket vs Stripes... it's oranges and pears - except for the fact
>>>     that
>>>      > you both make web apps with them. Stripes is geared towards
>>>      > simplifying the common model 2 paradigm, and it does a very good
>>> job
>>>      > at that as far as I've seen, While Wicket is all about stateful,
>>> self
>>>      > contained, reusable components.
>>>      >
>>>      > Personally, I don't think Stripes is always easier than Wicket,
>>>      > especially when you look at e.g.
>>>      >
>>>    
>>> http://mc4j.org/confluence/display/stripes/Binding+directly+to+your+domain+model
>>>      > ; Wicket's equivalent would be quite a lot easier imo, but for
>>> some
>>>      > things Stripes probably is easier, like when you are prototyping/
>>>      > moving your HTML structure around a lot.
>>>      >
>>>      > In the end, just choose which framework that gives you a warm and
>>>      > fuzzy feeling :) Stripes seems to be the best choice if you want
>>>     to go
>>>      > for a model 2 framework.
>>>      >
>>>      > Read some more here:
>>>      > http://www.virtuas.com/articles/webframework-sweetspots.html
>>>      >
>>>      > Eelco
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      >
>>>      > On 8/6/06, Pierre-Yves Saumont <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>     <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>>>      > > I would be very interested to know how you compare Wicket and
>>>     Stripes
>>>      > > and why you're leaning toward Wicket. (I didn't know about
>>>     Stripes, but
>>>      > > at first glance, it seems much simpler than Wicket, which I
>>>     have been
>>>      > > struggling with for two weeks now without much success!).
>>>      > >
>>>      > > Pierre-Yves
>>>      > >
>>>      > > Bill Bruyn a écrit :
>>>      > > > I have an opportunity to use a new framework on a current
>>>     project, and
>>>      > > > I've been trying to decide between Wicket and Stripes.  Both
>>>     look really
>>>      > > > nice, but at the moment I'm leaning toward Wicket.  Got a
>>>     skeleton
>>>      > > > project set up with 1.2.1 (via Wicket Bench 0.3.0) and am
>>>     running it
>>>      > > > with a JettyLauncher from Eclipse.  So far, so good, but my
>>>     wicket page
>>>      > > > markup (e.g., SomePage.html ) doesn't find my css.
>>>      > > >
>>>      > > > I've tried it at the root of my webapp and in the same
>>>     directory as the
>>>      > > > markup (looks like from the examples I should just be able to
>>>     drop it on
>>>      > > > the root).  I've tried adding a resource to the class via
>>>      > > > super.getResourceSettings().addResourceFolder (though I
>>>     shouldn't need
>>>      > > > that, right?) and nothing seems to work.  I'm sure this is
>>>     trivial, and
>>>      > > > it's a bit of a disappointment that I've already had to ask
>>>     for help,
>>>      > > > but I've done some googling, and some browsing of the Wiki
>>>     and the FAQ
>>>      > > > to no avail.
>>>      > > >
>>>      > > > BTW, I should also mention that when I request non-existent
>>>     resources
>>>      > > > from the app (e.g., foo.html) I am always redirected to the
>>> app's
>>>      > > > homepage instead of getting a 404.  Is that the desired
>>>     behavior?  Is it
>>>      > > > configurable?
>>>      > > >
>>>      > > >
>>>      > > > Thanks very much in advance,
>>>      > > >
>>>      > > > Bill
>>>      > > >


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user

Reply via email to