I too would be sad to announce this outcome, especially after investing the time necessary to research and evaluate the options and having looked into some of the ways wicket improves the whole development experience for web apps and, the quality of the end product. I have only been working with wicket for a short time but can already confirm, coming from a very OO background, that it is a pleasure to develop with. The philosophy and design of the framework just make sense; they have clearly been well thought out - the design and user experience (ie the developers' experience) is second to no other "competing" framework that I have come across. I agree that it takes a bit of learning, especially if an OO solution for the web-tier is not critical and the team is already familiar with Model-2, but, in my experience, there is no point dwelling on your team's decision if it has already been made. At the end of the day, most of these frameworks do work and are proven too, it's just that some are more interesting, powerful and enjoyable to work with, especially on larger applications. If during a future evaluation you were to come to this forum looking for pointers and answers about "how to do stuff in wicket" (and I do think that the documentation/examples can be improved in due course, hopefully once the incubation dust has settled) before your decision is reached, I am sure that forum members here with a much greater feel for wicket than myself, would be pleased to offer guidance/suggestions/feedback (and quickly, as you can see from the high-quality, unbiased responses you have already received on this thread) on some of the points your team concluded were wicket's relative merits or otherwise. Good luck with your project.
Florian Hehlen-2 wrote: > > HI all, > > I am sad to announce that my company did not choose to use wicket after > comparison with struts 2. :-( > > One criticism that came out as we were looking at Wicket code was that > there seems to be a need to write a lot of Java code in a ListView for > such things as displaying a table. Although I did not see this issue as > out-weighing all the benefits, many of my colleagues did. > > Is there any plan or push or hidden feature that allows for a bean to be > directly mapped to a template without having to declare new Label(...) > for each field in the ListView. I think this would be a great win for > Wicket if adding those low-level components was only necessary when one > wants to add special handling, formating, validation, etc. > > thanks, > Florian. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/wicket-did-not-make-the-grade.-tf3869999.html#a11015607 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
