You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Objelean Alex <al...@gmail.com> on 2009/04/01 10:40:03 UTC
Wicket and (or) restlet
I'm curious what are the community thoughts about restlet. Have you used
this framework? Can wicket & restlet work together? Have you had any
experience with it?
Thank you!
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca>.
I love Jersey,
Once you get the very simple model it works like a charm with non of
the hocus-pocus that restlets have.
I do use it with Wicket projects, but I have not yet had to integrate
the two because usually where I have a service I want to expose I
don't have the UI... I typically use two separate war builds.
- Brill
On 3-Apr-09, at 5:20 PM, Erik van Oosten wrote:
> Jonathan,
>
> If parameter handling is easy to do this in Jersey, then that is
> probably better then Restlet (well v1.x at least). I found that the
> hard part of Restlet. Working with all kinds of resource types is
> very powerfull in Restlet.
>
> Regards,
> Erik.
>
>
> Jonathan Locke wrote:
>> well, i'd be the first to admit i don't know either of these two
>> products
>> deeply, but for the kinds of applications i have for web services,
>> i found
>> jersey to have really easy, transparent support for request parameter
>> processing. you just annotate some parameters, create a jaxb schema
>> and add
>> an @Path attribute and you've pretty much got a web service.
>> although it
>> looks like a nice architecture that sticks to REST terminology, i
>> at least
>> couldn't find how restlet made some of this grunt work easy (but
>> then maybe
>> i missed that somehow).
>>
>>
>> Alexandru Objelean wrote:
>>
>>> Jonathan, can you elaborate? Why do you think jersey is better?
>>> Have you
>>> any experience of integrating it with wicket?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>>
>>> Jonathan Locke wrote:
>>>
>>>> interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services.
>>>>
>>>> i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Casper Bang-3 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes
>>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>> no
>>>>>> sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily
>>>>> exclude
>>>>> the
>>>>> other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
>>>>> representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces
>>>>> HTTP
>>>>> rather
>>>>> than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC
>>>>> handlers
>>>>> for
>>>>> everything).
>>>>>
>>>>> In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a
>>>>> standard
>>>>> templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very
>>>>> high
>>>>> scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this
>>>>> approach
>>>>> is
>>>>> that you are stuck to the classic templating model and
>>>>> components don't
>>>>> really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up
>>>>> manually.
>>>>>
>>>>> So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the
>>>>> possebility
>>>>> of
>>>>> Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps
>>>>> just a
>>>>> programming model adopted after Wicket.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Casper
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Erik van Oosten
> http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Erik van Oosten <e....@grons.nl>.
Jonathan,
If parameter handling is easy to do this in Jersey, then that is
probably better then Restlet (well v1.x at least). I found that the hard
part of Restlet. Working with all kinds of resource types is very
powerfull in Restlet.
Regards,
Erik.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
> well, i'd be the first to admit i don't know either of these two products
> deeply, but for the kinds of applications i have for web services, i found
> jersey to have really easy, transparent support for request parameter
> processing. you just annotate some parameters, create a jaxb schema and add
> an @Path attribute and you've pretty much got a web service. although it
> looks like a nice architecture that sticks to REST terminology, i at least
> couldn't find how restlet made some of this grunt work easy (but then maybe
> i missed that somehow).
>
>
> Alexandru Objelean wrote:
>
>> Jonathan, can you elaborate? Why do you think jersey is better? Have you
>> any experience of integrating it with wicket?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Jonathan Locke wrote:
>>
>>> interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services.
>>>
>>> i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket.
>>>
>>>
>>> Casper Bang-3 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely
>>>>> no
>>>>> sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude
>>>> the
>>>> other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
>>>> representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP
>>>> rather
>>>> than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers
>>>> for
>>>> everything).
>>>>
>>>> In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard
>>>> templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high
>>>> scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach
>>>> is
>>>> that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't
>>>> really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up
>>>> manually.
>>>>
>>>> So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility
>>>> of
>>>> Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a
>>>> programming model adopted after Wicket.
>>>>
>>>> /Casper
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
--
Erik van Oosten
http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Jonathan Locke <jo...@gmail.com>.
well, i'd be the first to admit i don't know either of these two products
deeply, but for the kinds of applications i have for web services, i found
jersey to have really easy, transparent support for request parameter
processing. you just annotate some parameters, create a jaxb schema and add
an @Path attribute and you've pretty much got a web service. although it
looks like a nice architecture that sticks to REST terminology, i at least
couldn't find how restlet made some of this grunt work easy (but then maybe
i missed that somehow).
Alexandru Objelean wrote:
>
> Jonathan, can you elaborate? Why do you think jersey is better? Have you
> any experience of integrating it with wicket?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Jonathan Locke wrote:
>>
>>
>> interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services.
>>
>> i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket.
>>
>>
>> Casper Bang-3 wrote:
>>>
>>>> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely
>>>> no
>>>> sense.
>>>>
>>>
>>> While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude
>>> the
>>> other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
>>> representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP
>>> rather
>>> than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers
>>> for
>>> everything).
>>>
>>> In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard
>>> templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high
>>> scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach
>>> is
>>> that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't
>>> really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up
>>> manually.
>>>
>>> So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility
>>> of
>>> Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a
>>> programming model adopted after Wicket.
>>>
>>> /Casper
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-%28or%29-restlet-tp22822162p22833918.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Wilhelmsen Tor Iver <To...@arrive.no>.
> Jonathan, can you elaborate? Why do you think jersey is
> better? Have you any experience of integrating it with wicket?
We use Jersey for REST here, mostly because it is Sun's reference
implementation of JAX-RS (and thus will most likely be updated fastest).
As for the options:
* Restlet: Implemented the REST ideas in a custom way before JAX-RS was
specced, spec support seems "crowbared in"
* RestEasy: Is a JBoss project, and there is as always a certain danger
of the "fish hook" that leads you into the rest of the JBoss stack. Now,
we are probably going to use JBoss ESB for some service orchestration,
but their ESB will not support REST-based services (I think only Mule
and ServiceMix do at the moment) until the 5.0 release which is a way
off.
* CXF: Axis and Xfire had a child, but it might be that it ends up as a
bloated mess since they are trying to implement all sorts of services in
one library. We do use it for SOAP services though.
What you need to be aware of is that the JAX-RS spec is purely server
oriented, and each implementation adds its own extension (like client
libraries and proxying, content type support, JAXB/JSON magic etc.) so
you do run the risk of "vendor lock-in" whichever you pick. But can you
really have vendor lock-in over free stuff? :)
Wicket could conceivably be morphed into a top layer to REST services
(human-oriented interaction using forms and resource links), but to work
"seamlessly" you probably end up with some very hairy URL coding
strategies, resource models etc. that could make "wicket-rest" break
Wicket for ordinary MVC purposes if running in the same webapp...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Alex Objelean <al...@yahoo.com>.
Jonathan, can you elaborate? Why do you think jersey is better? Have you any
experience of integrating it with wicket?
Thanks!
Jonathan Locke wrote:
>
>
> interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services.
>
> i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket.
>
>
> Casper Bang-3 wrote:
>>
>>> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no
>>> sense.
>>>
>>
>> While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude
>> the
>> other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
>> representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP
>> rather
>> than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers
>> for
>> everything).
>>
>> In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard
>> templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high
>> scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach is
>> that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't
>> really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up manually.
>>
>> So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility of
>> Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a
>> programming model adopted after Wicket.
>>
>> /Casper
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-%28or%29-restlet-tp22822162p22832756.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Jonathan Locke <jo...@gmail.com>.
interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services.
i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket.
Casper Bang-3 wrote:
>
>> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no
>> sense.
>>
>
> While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude the
> other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
> representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP rather
> than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers
> for
> everything).
>
> In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard
> templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high
> scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach is
> that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't
> really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up manually.
>
> So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility of
> Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a
> programming model adopted after Wicket.
>
> /Casper
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-%28or%29-restlet-tp22822162p22832474.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk>.
True, but as I said, one does not necessarily exclude the other. In its
current state such a use of Jersey is best suited for low-interactivity,
data-driven applications - but the same could be said for other web
frameworks such as Stripes.
Jersey provides implicit and explicit views through JSP's out of the box:
http://blogs.sun.com/sandoz/entry/mvcj
That's the way I use it, people have plugged in their own template layers.
I'd be interested in a component model such as Wicket on top, which is why I
reacted to this thread. I think there's a broad understanding that the
Wicket model makes programmers happy.
/Casper
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>wrote:
> huh? wicket is trying to address a completely different problem space
> - which is orthogonal to what restlet and other rest-like services are
> trying to achieve.
>
> do any of these restlet-like services provide anything to help you
> generate the ui? do they have jstl tags? components? templating?
> nothing out of the box right? you have to glue that yourself on top of
> them.
>
> -igor
>
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> wrote:
> >> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no
> >> sense.
> >>
> >
> > While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude
> the
> > other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
> > representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP
> rather
> > than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers
> for
> > everything).
> >
> > In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard
> > templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high
> > scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach is
> > that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't
> > really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up manually.
> >
> > So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility of
> > Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a
> > programming model adopted after Wicket.
> >
> > /Casper
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
huh? wicket is trying to address a completely different problem space
- which is orthogonal to what restlet and other rest-like services are
trying to achieve.
do any of these restlet-like services provide anything to help you
generate the ui? do they have jstl tags? components? templating?
nothing out of the box right? you have to glue that yourself on top of
them.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> wrote:
>> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no
>> sense.
>>
>
> While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude the
> other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
> representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP rather
> than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers for
> everything).
>
> In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard
> templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high
> scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach is
> that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't
> really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up manually.
>
> So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility of
> Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a
> programming model adopted after Wicket.
>
> /Casper
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk>.
> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no
> sense.
>
While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude the
other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability,
representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP rather
than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers for
everything).
In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard
templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high
scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach is
that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't
really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up manually.
So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility of
Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a
programming model adopted after Wicket.
/Casper
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no sense.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Alexandru Objelean
<al...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Actually there are very few informations regarding this subject. Recently I
> have found a quote at restlet page (http://www.restlet.org/about/quotes) :
> "I was working on a small project using Wicket but since switching to
> Restlet I will not be going back. Restlet makes java development productive,
> fun, and places no real framework burden on a developer."
>
> I didn't have an opportunity to work with restlet, that is why I'm asking
> the community about it.
>
> Alex
>
>
>
> Erik van Oosten wrote:
>>
>> There are several mails with opinions regarding this subject.
>>
>> One way to actually use Restlet and Wicket together is described on
>> http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/springbean-outside-wicket.html.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Erik.
>>
>>
>> Objelean Alex wrote:
>>> I'm curious what are the community thoughts about restlet. Have you used
>>> this framework? Can wicket & restlet work together? Have you had any
>>> experience with it?
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Erik van Oosten
>> http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-%28or%29-restlet-tp22822162p22824090.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Alexandru Objelean <al...@gmail.com>.
Actually there are very few informations regarding this subject. Recently I
have found a quote at restlet page (http://www.restlet.org/about/quotes) :
"I was working on a small project using Wicket but since switching to
Restlet I will not be going back. Restlet makes java development productive,
fun, and places no real framework burden on a developer."
I didn't have an opportunity to work with restlet, that is why I'm asking
the community about it.
Alex
Erik van Oosten wrote:
>
> There are several mails with opinions regarding this subject.
>
> One way to actually use Restlet and Wicket together is described on
> http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/springbean-outside-wicket.html.
>
> Regards,
> Erik.
>
>
> Objelean Alex wrote:
>> I'm curious what are the community thoughts about restlet. Have you used
>> this framework? Can wicket & restlet work together? Have you had any
>> experience with it?
>>
>> Thank you!
>>
>>
>
> --
> Erik van Oosten
> http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-%28or%29-restlet-tp22822162p22824090.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket and (or) restlet
Posted by Erik van Oosten <e....@grons.nl>.
There are several mails with opinions regarding this subject.
One way to actually use Restlet and Wicket together is described on
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/springbean-outside-wicket.html.
Regards,
Erik.
Objelean Alex wrote:
> I'm curious what are the community thoughts about restlet. Have you used
> this framework? Can wicket & restlet work together? Have you had any
> experience with it?
>
> Thank you!
>
>
--
Erik van Oosten
http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org