On 2/14/07, Ryan Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few > thoughts about in-line component declaration. > > 1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully > supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain > templates. In fact, it's generally discouraged in Tapestry for those > reasons. > > 2.) Providing a fundamentally different, optional way to declare > components in Wicket seems more like an unnecessary increase in "ways > to do it" rather than a useful increase in flexibility. > > 3) The tooling support issue should not be underestimated. The author > of the Spindle plugin for Tapestry eventually gave up on updating it > for Tapestry 4 precisely because there were so many ways in which > components could be defined (in the template, in the XML spec file or > in Java via annotations). While experienced Tapestry users can get > along just fine without that plugin, it was a big "selling point" for > new users.
It's good to read this from a 'regular user', and from actual experience. I'm changing my vote to: +1 for removing it. Thanks Ryan, Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
