Wicket in a containerless environment

[Arjun Dhar <dh...@yahoo.com>]

Hi,
I've been experimenting with "Play" and Scala. Very agile and theoretically
fast with Netty.
Read some benchmarks that did not show Wicket too well, however from a
development/templating perspective I still cannot rationalize a better
framework than wicket.

Wickets Session and Request classes do not extend any Servlet Spec; which
gives me the impression there is some thinking in allowing wicket to run in
a container less environment. ..maybe am over thinking. But if not, one for
the Dev team to think and support I guess.

I'd be really interested to mash things up with Wicket & Play, as few things
about Play are uncomfortable to get around conceptually. Too early to
comment, but I also feel Play's default templating style sucks.
...And for product development, a component oriented approach does have
benefits, while Play seems to under-play!

..Anyone playing with Wicket without a traditional servlet container?

-----
Software documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and when it is bad, it is still better than nothing!
--
View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-a-containerless-environment-tp4536820p4536820.html
Sent from the Users forum 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 in a containerless environment

[Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>]

Hi,

I've tried once to provide Netty based impls of WicketFilter,
WebRequest, WebResponse, ... and it wasn't hard at all. But the
problem is that many of the form components also use directly classes
from javax.servlet package, like Cookie for example, or
HttpServletRequest (by casting webRequest.getContainerRequest()).

About the performance:
I guess you talk about the benchmarks made with
https://github.com/jtdev/blogpost_files . The reason why Wicket is
slower is mainly because Wicket constructs components for almost
everything (label, row, table) while most of the other web frameworks
just concatenate those as plain strings.
See what is the difference between Wicket's DropDownChoice and Select
components. DropDownChoice uses String concatenation to be both faster
and lighter than Select which uses a SelectOption component for each
<option> you need to render. Select on the other side is more flexible
to provide custom markup for each <option> (see
http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/compref/wicket/bookmarkable/org.apache.wicket.examples.compref.SelectPage).

In summary :
1) you can use Tomcat/Jetty/AnyOtherServletContainer with NIO based
connectors to be faster as Netty.
2) create custom component that does its job as good as possible for
your needs (faster rendering, more memory efficient, ...) and is still
reusable.


On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Arjun Dhar <dh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been experimenting with "Play" and Scala. Very agile and theoretically
> fast with Netty.
> Read some benchmarks that did not show Wicket too well, however from a
> development/templating perspective I still cannot rationalize a better
> framework than wicket.
>
> Wickets Session and Request classes do not extend any Servlet Spec; which
> gives me the impression there is some thinking in allowing wicket to run in
> a container less environment. ..maybe am over thinking. But if not, one for
> the Dev team to think and support I guess.
>
> I'd be really interested to mash things up with Wicket & Play, as few things
> about Play are uncomfortable to get around conceptually. Too early to
> comment, but I also feel Play's default templating style sucks.
> ...And for product development, a component oriented approach does have
> benefits, while Play seems to under-play!
>
> ..Anyone playing with Wicket without a traditional servlet container?
>
> -----
> Software documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and when it is bad, it is still better than nothing!
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-a-containerless-environment-tp4536820p4536820.html
> Sent from the Users forum 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
>



-- 
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org

Re: Wicket in a containerless environment

[vineet semwal <vi...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Arjun Dhar <dh...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> I've been experimenting with "Play" and Scala. Very agile and theoretically
> fast with Netty.
> Read some benchmarks that did not show Wicket too well, however from a
> development/templating perspective I still cannot rationalize a better
> framework than wicket.
>
> Wickets Session and Request classes do not extend any Servlet Spec; which
> gives me the impression there is some thinking in allowing wicket to run in
> a container less environment. ..maybe am over thinking. But if not, one for
> the Dev team to think and support I guess.
>
> I'd be really interested to mash things up with Wicket & Play, as few things
> about Play are uncomfortable to get around conceptually. Too early to
> comment, but I also feel Play's default templating style sucks.
> ...And for product development, a component oriented approach does have
> benefits, while Play seems to under-play!
>
> ..Anyone playing with Wicket without a traditional servlet container?
wickettester? ;)

>
> -----
> Software documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; and when it is bad, it is still better than nothing!
> --
> View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-a-containerless-environment-tp4536820p4536820.html
> Sent from the Users forum 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
>



-- 
thank you,

regards,
Vineet Semwal

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org