is the state stored like tapestry - disjointed from the components?
do components have to be beans?
does it store undo history to handle the back button somewhere when the state is stored serverside in session and not in urls?
what drew me to wicket and away from tapestry were the following things:
in wicket i could have very dynamic component hierarchies. i can take any panel and switch it with any other panel, move components around, etc. in tapestry the hierarchy is pretty much fixed from the creation of the page because of how it defines, pools, and handles state.
in wicket i can use good citizen pattern with constructors and have private/protected final variables because wicket is unmanaged and so components dont have to be beans. in tapestry components have to be beans so none of these are possible. also to have your state persisted you have to have your getters/setters abstract and declared (at least as of a late 3.x).
wicket keeps undo history so it can restore the proper state when the back button is used. when you use tapestry you are pretty much on your own when you use session scope.
i tried to look for this stuff in wo docs but couldnt really find anything useful.
-Igor
On 8/30/06, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
