You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> on 2014/11/02 16:10:19 UTC
Wikipedia comparison of frameworks: wicket is not MVC?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#Java_2
I have no idea what:
"No (Modular event-driven)"
even means?
Especially since all other component oriented frameworks have a clear yes.
I tried to see how this distinction came to be, but the page is so
frequently modified it was not possible to do so in a short time.
AFAIK it should be Yes.
Martijn
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wikipedia comparison of frameworks: wicket is not MVC?
Posted by andrea del bene <an...@gmail.com>.
On 02/11/2014 16:52, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 4:37 PM, andrea del bene <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I don't even get why we find "active record pattern" for Grails...BTW,
>> strictly speaking Wicket has no "controller" part so we might say no for
>> MVC. In any case anything would be better than the current description :)
> We have: the component. It acts as both the controller and the view,
> so we are a Model2 framework!
>
>
Yes, I agree. I think it could be considered as a kind of variation of
the original MVC.
Re: Wikipedia comparison of frameworks: wicket is not MVC?
Posted by Martin Makundi <ma...@koodaripalvelut.com>.
One can build a controller to manage all the onConfigure(xx) but the wicket
framework does not provide a controller so basically it's left for the
developer.
**
Martin
2014-11-02 17:52 GMT+02:00 Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 4:37 PM, andrea del bene <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't even get why we find "active record pattern" for Grails...BTW,
> > strictly speaking Wicket has no "controller" part so we might say no for
> > MVC. In any case anything would be better than the current description :)
>
> We have: the component. It acts as both the controller and the view,
> so we are a Model2 framework!
>
> Or else we could say the RequestCycle is the controller but I think
> that is a stretch...
>
> Martijn
>
Re: Wikipedia comparison of frameworks: wicket is not MVC?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2014 at 4:37 PM, andrea del bene <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't even get why we find "active record pattern" for Grails...BTW,
> strictly speaking Wicket has no "controller" part so we might say no for
> MVC. In any case anything would be better than the current description :)
We have: the component. It acts as both the controller and the view,
so we are a Model2 framework!
Or else we could say the RequestCycle is the controller but I think
that is a stretch...
Martijn
Re: Wikipedia comparison of frameworks: wicket is not MVC?
Posted by andrea del bene <an...@gmail.com>.
I don't even get why we find "active record pattern" for Grails...BTW,
strictly speaking Wicket has no "controller" part so we might say no for
MVC. In any case anything would be better than the current description :)
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_application_frameworks#Java_2
>
> I have no idea what:
>
> "No (Modular event-driven)"
>
> even means?
>
> Especially since all other component oriented frameworks have a clear yes.
>
> I tried to see how this distinction came to be, but the page is so
> frequently modified it was not possible to do so in a short time.
>
> AFAIK it should be Yes.
>
> Martijn
>