Frank Silbermann wrote: > Just glancing at your link for a few seconds, and reading the earlier > comment that it looks like ASP.NET with VS.NET, I would guess that Web > Objects provides a library of components that you can paint onto your > pages, automatically generating the custom tags in your HTML file.
Yes, but you don't have to do it that way. > Suppose you are customizing a component by setting many properties, and > using it with those settings on fifty different webpages. In Wicket, I > can create a method which instantiates a web display object, sets its > properties and returns it. I can then call that method every time I > want to instantiate a web object with those settings. You can, of course, do that with WO as well. > What facility does Web Objects provide that lets you avoid having to > re-set those properties fifty times? ... and however you choose to construct your "web display object" it is (naturally) also a component that can be used as a building block for other "web display objects". > (Isn't the inconvenience of adding slightly-customized variations of > components to the toolset the reason most Swing GUI programmers end up > building their GUI in code instead of using some IDE's graphical > GUI-painter?) Most people just don't want to change their way of doing things (and some graphical GUI-painters are not very good). You seem to think there is only a fixed and limited set of components to work with - why assume something like that? /Anders > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anders > Peterson > Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 12:51 PM > To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] WebObjects open source? > > Not sure what to say... it makes me productive... > > It's not really fair to compare Wicket and WebObjects (WO). WO is a > whole package of frameworks and tools that function well together (but > can be used independently). Wicket needs team mates to replace WO > entirely. > > With Wicket any html and java editors will do just fine. This is > generally a good thing (I think) but it's also a restriction. With > WebObjects the tools are part of what makes the package great: > > Start up the WOBuilder tool, create a WODisplayGroup instance and start > (visually) combining WOComponents and binding them to data. It's fast > and intuitive... > > /Anders > > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/WebObjects/Conceptual/WO53_WOBu > ilderGuide/ > > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/webobjects/Reference/API/com/we > bobjects/appserver/WODisplayGroup.html > http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Webobjects/Reference/API/com/we > bobjects/appserver/WOComponent.html > > Eelco Hillenius wrote: >> :) It's one of my favorite parts of Wicket, so sure. >> >> What about the strong points of WebObjects, what are the things you >> really like about that? >> >> Eelco >> >> On 8/29/06, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Sure, if it has to be just like Wicket to compete; you win. ;-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
