Hey Frank, 2011/3/22 <[email protected]>: > I think both frameworks share some design decisions, for example both > are widget centric. Both maintain application state. Both support > degradation. > Both are actively developed and supported. Both go beyond the capabilities > of django for example. So both frameworks seem to be comparable. > > For sure there are differences and I'm interested in knowing about them. > Examples: Wt supports different languages, Wicket maintains an application > state > history to support the "back" button.
I'ld be interested too in a comparison, and I haven't been able to find one either. I do not have any experience with Wicket, except for looking at some example code. For other various reasons too, I could not help to be biased in a comparison :-) >From that I learned that (correct me if I'm wrong): - with Wicket, you need to specify yourself how fragments are updated through Ajax, and it is based on fragments. This is similar to ASP.NET if I understand correctly. In JWt, this is all handled by the library behind the scenes, and is as fine-grained as needed. - graceful degradation is possible, but you need to deal with it largely yourself. With JWt, there is less need (but you still need to keep it in mind and make design decisions). - JWt has optional progressive enhancement: a plain HTML version is sent first, and later upgraded using Ajax if possible. - JWt has more complex widgets (e.g. WTreeView, WTableView with lazy loading), layout management (for those cases where CSS doesn't suffice) and graphics support (WPaintedWidget). Btw, JWt has a history API as well, it's called "internal path API". It even uses HTML5 History API (availabe in git, and to be part of JWt 3.1.9) to have exactly the same URLs for plain HTML and Ajax sessions. Wicket supports localisation too from what I read? Wicket on the other hand has a better marketing machinery which they inherited from apache, and from the fact that they are an apache licensed project. Wicket is considered more as an alternative to JSF, because it is less different from JSF than JWt is. JWt started more from a desktop-idea and added web-stuff (internal paths, WTemplate) -- Wicket on the other hand started from web idea (Pages, plain HTML) and added desktop-stuff (widgets/components). Finally, JWt is younger than Wicket, although Wt (C++ one) predates Wicket, and JWt is mostly a source-translation of the latter. Good luck with your choice, and, I'ld be interested in any notes you have on comparing both. Regards, koen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Enable your software for Intel(R) Active Management Technology to meet the growing manageability and security demands of your customers. Businesses are taking advantage of Intel(R) vPro (TM) technology - will your software be a part of the solution? Download the Intel(R) Manageability Checker today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmar _______________________________________________ witty-interest mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/witty-interest
