Thank's for your reply! > > Only if you consider less the same as cleaner. If you are doing a lot > of inter-component interactions, this would actually be a > disadvantage. What I (and collegues) do a lot is use a component (e.g. > a panel) and a bunch of nested classes in that panel (Panels, > fragments, other) that uses state and methods of the outer component. > For situations where the UI is complex, it saves a lot of effort to > work like this, and imo you end up with very nice encapsulated > components with minimal plumbing. Imo, being able to work like this is > one of the biggest pro's compared to declaratively composing your > component tree. >
Agree, 90% of dayly problems are easy to solve with WO. The remaining 10% like inter components communication are not easy to do (may be not possible) with WO. > > - Wicket has nice URLs (if we want to). WO not really. (keeping an ugly > > cgi-bin/WebObjects in URLs) > > > > - WO is not multithread by default. (When deployed, you can deploy multiple > > instances of the same app) > > I don't really understand what you mean by this. Is WO based on servlets btw? > No, not by default, it's a custom app server. An ant task also exists to build a .war and deploy it in a regulard servlet container. Then you must be careful that your code is thread safe. > > > > WO is very mature (first version in 1996, yes the first component framework > > and ORM tool...), has good documentation and is a little...dead (only > > maintenance versions) > > Pretty amazing. I wasn't even programming in Java at that time. Too > bad they didn't open source it before Struts arrived. > At that time that was in Objective C :) and it was very expensive. I began web developpement in Java with WO, then tried Tapestry or JSF + Hibernate as an alternative... not even close. Wicket (+ ? for the data layer) IMO is the only one making things simpler as WO does it. > > - Wicket is young, active but lacks of solid documentation for the moment. > > Well, there is http://www.apress.com/book/bookDisplay.html?bID=10189 now! :) > We bought it, nice first wicket book ! > > > > - In WO, you don't need to create custom components if you don't need them > > elsewhere. > > In Wicket if you want keep a simple and maintenable code for a rather > > complex page, you should create Panels, other components,wich are not needed > > in other pages. > > Can you expand on where/ why you think that difference comes from? Are > some of the default components of WO better abstracted for the kind of > things you do? For example, I'm thinking of some pages sometimes that contains tons of little dynamic "label" (or WOString ;)). In a declarative way, you don't need to factorize these in a new component. With Wicket, we usually factorize these in a custom Panel to keep the page class clean. Off topic, are there other Web Mailinglist reader than gmane, its posting form is driving me crazy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
