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 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
Wicket-user mailing list

Reply via email to