You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> on 2009/04/08 15:11:51 UTC
GWT vs. Wicket?
I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It seems
to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on code, not
markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The bennefit
of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade nicer and
the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?
/Casper
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
I really like the idea behind GWT. And striving for a statically typed
'true' OO programming model is what GWT and Wicket have in common.
I haven't build anything with GWT, so my opinions in this respect are
what I infer from how I think GWT works. I expect GWT to scale more
easily if you plan well for it. Meaning that you probably don't want
to end up with a very crowded pages that's very chatty with the
server.. in that case Wicket might actually be more efficient
(probably a surprise for many) because often times it'll do everything
in one request (locality). A few other things I like about Wicket when
compared with GWT:
- It's just the Java code you work with, nothing complicating like an
extra compile step (in GWT's case to JavaScript) or even byte code
engineering like many other frameworks do. This makes Wicket easier to
debug - though admitted Wicket doesn't have the easiest to follow
bowels around due to the magic we have to do to give users a stateful
programing experience.
- Wicket is very flexible. I've read comments a while back of someone
saying Wicket doesn't very well support integrating with other
libraries... well, that's just bullocks. Some things will be harder
than other things, but you can pretty much take the framework apart at
any level and replace with your own ideas, including tags that
dynamically create components and stuff.
- Wicket is completely dynamic. I've worked on several projects now
where we had panels contributed by e.g. domain objects. Maybe not
something that appeals to people who take separation of layers ultra
serious, but I think it is awesome. I currently use this for
functionality that is about surveys. Surveys have questions, and these
questions can be anything... free text, multiple choice, but
potentially location or color. Questions can contribute their own
panels for editing and viewing. So we can decide at some point to e.g.
develop a location question, that displays a map, and we could jar the
question with the UI with it, plug it in, and no-one ever had to touch
other parts of the UI. I love that kind of flexiblity, and it's hard
to find frameworks that support stuff like that (though I expect that
you can achieve something like this with GWT, I don't expect it to be
as straightforward as with Wicket).
- It's safe by default. I don't mean hacker-safe, but rather that you
never by default communicate sensitive info like IDs (or as with GWT
whole objects) with clients. My experience with using other frameworks
than Wicket is that we always spent quite a bit of time making sure
users couldn't do things they weren't supposed to do (like deleting an
object they have no right for), whereas with Wicket based projects the
amount of time doing this is zero.
I do expect a few things to be nicer with GWT though. Mainly, no
worries about scaling (Wicket *is* scalable, but beyond a few servers
you'll have to do work for it, while with GWT it's mainly a question
of scaling your services and avoid too much chatty-ness), and no
worries about detaching models! And these two advantages can be large
enough for someone to prefer GWT.
I can easily make this email 3 times longer with my perceived pros and
cons, but these are the things that spontaneously came up. :-)
Eelco
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 6:11 AM, Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> wrote:
> I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It seems
> to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on code, not
> markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
> maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
> readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The bennefit
> of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade nicer and
> the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?
>
> /Casper
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by HHB <hu...@yahoo.ca>.
Currently, I'm rewriting our GWT-based application and I picked Wicket.
GWT is delicious but only on papers.
GWT cons:
1. lack of roles separation, building the GUI in the code doesn't work for
me.
2. Hibernate integration is a nightmare.
3. Unit testing isn't that agile thing.
I like GWT but I wouldn't prefer to work with it daily.
Casper Bang-3 wrote:
>
> I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It seems
> to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on code,
> not
> markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
> maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
> readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The
> bennefit
> of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade nicer and
> the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?
>
> /Casper
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GWT-vs.-Wicket--tp22950178p23020555.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: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca>.
There is no real easy way, but to do it :)
I find the hardest thing about Wicket, particularly when your first
starting out, is discarding all the old ideas about how a webapp is
built...
Having worked in the field for a long time, servlets, JSPs, Struts,
etc. it took me a while to get over the old patterns of doing things
and start thinking more wicket'y
I still have trouble with WIcket now and then because there *is* quite
a lot of complexity when your doing something non-standard, however I
usually find that the answer is the obvious one and trying something
usually works... and when I think about it, i realize that the same
non-standard "thing" i was doing would have taken just as much time in
any other framework to sort out.
What I love wicket for in particular, is the very good separation
between view and controller/model. no more crap logic in my HTML!
Yay.
Anyway, i'll continue to use both GWT and Wicket.
- Brill Pappin
On 8-Apr-09, at 9:24 PM, ying rss wrote:
>
> I played with both GWT and wicket. I was drawn to wicket by several
> reviews
> and I'm disappointed.
> I use maven to build gwt and ext-js and GXT which works very well.
> Compilation is slow but with tuning to specific browser, the call
> stack is
> straight forward. It's my feeling that GWT is closer to core java than
> wicket.
> * I don't know much about javascript so I like the idea of language
> separation in GWT. Not very much into wicket's way to blend everything
> together.
> * Appreciate the fact there are samples for wicket. But Wicket's
> documentation and samples are not enough. There is a lot of pain to
> do a
> little bit more advanced things in wicket for beginners and there
> are many
> user requests in user email list. I never had so much trouble in my
> gwt
> project. Maybe I haven't found a easy way out. Appreciate any
> suggestions.
>
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GWT-vs.-Wicket--tp22950178p22962926.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: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by ying rss <do...@gmail.com>.
I played with both GWT and wicket. I was drawn to wicket by several reviews
and I'm disappointed.
I use maven to build gwt and ext-js and GXT which works very well.
Compilation is slow but with tuning to specific browser, the call stack is
straight forward. It's my feeling that GWT is closer to core java than
wicket.
* I don't know much about javascript so I like the idea of language
separation in GWT. Not very much into wicket's way to blend everything
together.
* Appreciate the fact there are samples for wicket. But Wicket's
documentation and samples are not enough. There is a lot of pain to do a
little bit more advanced things in wicket for beginners and there are many
user requests in user email list. I never had so much trouble in my gwt
project. Maybe I haven't found a easy way out. Appreciate any suggestions.
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/GWT-vs.-Wicket--tp22950178p22962926.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: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca>.
Getting to to do something specific is not usually my problem with GWT
(its component model feels just like Wickets does)... the biggest
problem I have is having less control over the html, which makes
things a bit harder to deal with (Googles ui style now is partly the
result of how you work with GWT).
GWT itself is pretty extensible, but I found that ExtJS was just the
opposite... although it has gotten better in ExtGwt.
Anyway, I actually like them both :) and keep both in my toolkit...
only wish they could play better together.
BTW - your article mentioned not being able to see the HTML... the
developer tools plugin for Firefox has a "View Generated Source"
command, which makes things a lot easier when your debugging GWT html
(I've even used it on Wicket for that matter).
- Brill Pappin
On 8-Apr-09, at 12:32 PM, Peter Thomas wrote:
> I thought Matt Raible had some success with getting GWT to play nice
> with
> Maven:
>
> http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/modularizing_gwt_applications_with_gwt
>
> Personally I would choose GWT only when I want to keep server calls
> to a
> bare minimum. "Ready made" components and all may look enticing,
> but in my
> experience you always fall into the trap where they do *almost* what
> you
> want but not *exactly* (just like JSF).
>
> In theory nothing stops somone from writing components as "rich
> looking" as
> ExtJS. I think Matej's "inmethod grid" is a good example.
>
> P.S. people say my article is "one sided" but no-one can explain
> *why ;) -
> ok, ok this has been discussed to death in the comments there ...
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca> wrote:
>
>> Yah, its a pitty, but the Google guys are pretty down on Maven.
>>
>> I once asked them to look into making it more maven friendly, and got
>> throughly blasted.
>> if I remember correctly the comment from one of the GWT developers
>> was
>> something along the lines of "we don't want to waste our time with
>> garbage
>> like maven".
>> I didn't bother to argue about it, because if you know maven and
>> like it,
>> you know why its advantageous, and if your that set against it it
>> won't
>> matter what others say.
>>
>> However there are a few maven plugins for it, and combined with the
>> war
>> overlay feature, it not to hard to get it all working and integrate
>> with
>> other projects.
>>
>> - Brill Pappin
>>
>>
>> On 8-Apr-09, at 10:46 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
>>
>> Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good article, if perhaps a bit one-sided. I can understand how
>>> separation-of-concerns/composability comes slightly more natural to
>>> Wicket.
>>> However the performance, flexibility and component repertoire of
>>> GWT along
>>> with steadily more capable browsers leaves me with a feeling that
>>> "I'll
>>> get
>>> more bang for my buck".
>>>
>>> Until GWT has a build system that is better I'll stay away from it.
>>>>
>>> Since version 1.6 today, it uses normal Ant scripts (which I
>>> suppose is
>>> easy
>>> to mavenize).
>>>
>>> Thanks guys,
>>>
>>> /Casper
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk>.
> P.S. people say my article is "one sided" but no-one can explain *why ;) -
> ok, ok this has been discussed to death in the comments there ...
>
I should mention I love wicket (coming from JSF) but has only limited
exposure to it while having no experience at all with GWT. However while
reading, I did pick up a slight bias towards Wicket in the article, perhaps
unintentional on your part but not really unexpected since you obviously do
hang out here on the WIcket group.
I guess the feeling comes from the fact that the pro/con comparisons don't
seem quite balanced. I.e. there's no mentioning of the scalability &
adressability problem of holding state on the server, the managability
problem in needing a java file for each html file (and keeping these in
sync), nor the inherent bennefits of having a specialized compiler validate,
optimize and strip data that's really primarily meant for the browser
anyway. I did enjoy the article though, thanks for writing it. :)
/Casper
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Peter Thomas <pt...@gmail.com>.
I thought Matt Raible had some success with getting GWT to play nice with
Maven:
http://raibledesigns.com/rd/entry/modularizing_gwt_applications_with_gwt
Personally I would choose GWT only when I want to keep server calls to a
bare minimum. "Ready made" components and all may look enticing, but in my
experience you always fall into the trap where they do *almost* what you
want but not *exactly* (just like JSF).
In theory nothing stops somone from writing components as "rich looking" as
ExtJS. I think Matej's "inmethod grid" is a good example.
P.S. people say my article is "one sided" but no-one can explain *why ;) -
ok, ok this has been discussed to death in the comments there ...
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca> wrote:
> Yah, its a pitty, but the Google guys are pretty down on Maven.
>
> I once asked them to look into making it more maven friendly, and got
> throughly blasted.
> if I remember correctly the comment from one of the GWT developers was
> something along the lines of "we don't want to waste our time with garbage
> like maven".
> I didn't bother to argue about it, because if you know maven and like it,
> you know why its advantageous, and if your that set against it it won't
> matter what others say.
>
> However there are a few maven plugins for it, and combined with the war
> overlay feature, it not to hard to get it all working and integrate with
> other projects.
>
> - Brill Pappin
>
>
> On 8-Apr-09, at 10:46 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
>
> Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
>>>
>>
>> Good article, if perhaps a bit one-sided. I can understand how
>> separation-of-concerns/composability comes slightly more natural to
>> Wicket.
>> However the performance, flexibility and component repertoire of GWT along
>> with steadily more capable browsers leaves me with a feeling that "I'll
>> get
>> more bang for my buck".
>>
>> Until GWT has a build system that is better I'll stay away from it.
>>>
>> Since version 1.6 today, it uses normal Ant scripts (which I suppose is
>> easy
>> to mavenize).
>>
>> Thanks guys,
>>
>> /Casper
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca>.
Yah, its a pitty, but the Google guys are pretty down on Maven.
I once asked them to look into making it more maven friendly, and got
throughly blasted.
if I remember correctly the comment from one of the GWT developers was
something along the lines of "we don't want to waste our time with
garbage like maven".
I didn't bother to argue about it, because if you know maven and like
it, you know why its advantageous, and if your that set against it it
won't matter what others say.
However there are a few maven plugins for it, and combined with the
war overlay feature, it not to hard to get it all working and
integrate with other projects.
- Brill Pappin
On 8-Apr-09, at 10:46 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
>> Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
>
> Good article, if perhaps a bit one-sided. I can understand how
> separation-of-concerns/composability comes slightly more natural to
> Wicket.
> However the performance, flexibility and component repertoire of GWT
> along
> with steadily more capable browsers leaves me with a feeling that
> "I'll get
> more bang for my buck".
>
>> Until GWT has a build system that is better I'll stay away from it.
> Since version 1.6 today, it uses normal Ant scripts (which I suppose
> is easy
> to mavenize).
>
> Thanks guys,
>
> /Casper
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Ben Tilford <be...@gmail.com>.
There was a grails-wicket plugin but I don't think it works with any recent
version. They are also working on making grails more modular with standalone
GORM etc...
Also heard somewhere that Groovy 1.7 or 1.8 will allow anonymous inner
classes.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 8:53 PM, Andre Prasetya <an...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Zk ia good for buildng qpplication bt the zul wndow layout is just
> like that. And the license os stopping us from buildng commercial apps
> wthout buying their licnse.it worth th money but if u live in an
> economically poor country,you can't afford it.
>
> I wish wicket can play nicely with grails,having something like active
> record to use with wicket is nice.
>
> Andre
>
> On 4/8/09, Azzeddine Daddah <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > You may also take a look at ZK framework. It's also a kind of framework
> > which can be used to build beautiful RIA's. You can chose to use it by
> > writing your app in just Java or in Java/Zul.
> > http://www.zkoss.org
> >
> > But in my opinion, Wicket stills beter then these kind of frameworks :)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Azzeddine Daddah
> > www.hbiloo.com
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> wrote:
> >
> >> > Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
> >>
> >> Good article, if perhaps a bit one-sided. I can understand how
> >> separation-of-concerns/composability comes slightly more natural to
> >> Wicket.
> >> However the performance, flexibility and component repertoire of GWT
> along
> >> with steadily more capable browsers leaves me with a feeling that "I'll
> >> get
> >> more bang for my buck".
> >>
> >> > Until GWT has a build system that is better I'll stay away from it.
> >> Since version 1.6 today, it uses normal Ant scripts (which I suppose is
> >> easy
> >> to mavenize).
> >>
> >> Thanks guys,
> >>
> >> /Casper
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> -Andre-
> "A Programmer's Diary"
> http://rafunkel.blogspot.com
> My journey in enjoying spring...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Andre Prasetya <an...@gmail.com>.
Zk ia good for buildng qpplication bt the zul wndow layout is just
like that. And the license os stopping us from buildng commercial apps
wthout buying their licnse.it worth th money but if u live in an
economically poor country,you can't afford it.
I wish wicket can play nicely with grails,having something like active
record to use with wicket is nice.
Andre
On 4/8/09, Azzeddine Daddah <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> You may also take a look at ZK framework. It's also a kind of framework
> which can be used to build beautiful RIA's. You can chose to use it by
> writing your app in just Java or in Java/Zul.
> http://www.zkoss.org
>
> But in my opinion, Wicket stills beter then these kind of frameworks :)
>
> Regards,
>
> Azzeddine Daddah
> www.hbiloo.com
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> wrote:
>
>> > Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
>>
>> Good article, if perhaps a bit one-sided. I can understand how
>> separation-of-concerns/composability comes slightly more natural to
>> Wicket.
>> However the performance, flexibility and component repertoire of GWT along
>> with steadily more capable browsers leaves me with a feeling that "I'll
>> get
>> more bang for my buck".
>>
>> > Until GWT has a build system that is better I'll stay away from it.
>> Since version 1.6 today, it uses normal Ant scripts (which I suppose is
>> easy
>> to mavenize).
>>
>> Thanks guys,
>>
>> /Casper
>>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
-Andre-
"A Programmer's Diary"
http://rafunkel.blogspot.com
My journey in enjoying spring...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Azzeddine Daddah <wa...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
You may also take a look at ZK framework. It's also a kind of framework
which can be used to build beautiful RIA's. You can chose to use it by
writing your app in just Java or in Java/Zul.
http://www.zkoss.org
But in my opinion, Wicket stills beter then these kind of frameworks :)
Regards,
Azzeddine Daddah
www.hbiloo.com
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:46 PM, Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> wrote:
> > Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
>
> Good article, if perhaps a bit one-sided. I can understand how
> separation-of-concerns/composability comes slightly more natural to Wicket.
> However the performance, flexibility and component repertoire of GWT along
> with steadily more capable browsers leaves me with a feeling that "I'll get
> more bang for my buck".
>
> > Until GWT has a build system that is better I'll stay away from it.
> Since version 1.6 today, it uses normal Ant scripts (which I suppose is
> easy
> to mavenize).
>
> Thanks guys,
>
> /Casper
>
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk>.
> Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
Good article, if perhaps a bit one-sided. I can understand how
separation-of-concerns/composability comes slightly more natural to Wicket.
However the performance, flexibility and component repertoire of GWT along
with steadily more capable browsers leaves me with a feeling that "I'll get
more bang for my buck".
> Until GWT has a build system that is better I'll stay away from it.
Since version 1.6 today, it uses normal Ant scripts (which I suppose is easy
to mavenize).
Thanks guys,
/Casper
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Ben Tilford <be...@gmail.com>.
Working with GWT is kind of a nightmare. You have to write custom build
scripts for any library / module you use so that the sources are included in
the jar and available to the GWT compiler. Until GWT has a build system that
is better I'll stay away from it. Really a shame because the programming
model used is nice.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Craig Tataryn <cr...@tataryn.net> wrote:
> Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
>
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/wicket-and-gwt-compared-with-code/
>
> Craig.
>
>
> On 8-Apr-09, at 8:11 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
>
> I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It seems
>> to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on code,
>> not
>> markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
>> maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
>> readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The
>> bennefit
>> of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade nicer and
>> the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?
>>
>> /Casper
>>
>
>
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Craig Tataryn <cr...@tataryn.net>.
Peter Thomas did a great side by side you should checkout:
http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2008/09/04/wicket-and-gwt-compared-with-code/
Craig.
On 8-Apr-09, at 8:11 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
> I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It
> seems
> to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on
> code, not
> markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
> maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
> readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The
> bennefit
> of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade
> nicer and
> the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?
>
> /Casper
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Brill Pappin <br...@pappin.ca>.
I've used both extensively now.
I think the comparison is an apples <-> oranges thing however.
GWT does not really play well with other frameworks because of its
generated code, but if your doing a mostly client side/ajaxy
application, nothing beats it for performance and maintainability.
However I love Wicket for its simple separation of UI/Control/Data it
makes it easier to develop an application rapidly, particularly if you
have to pass the UI development to another person (very difficult to
do in GWT unless that the design guy is comfortable compiling code,
which most are not).
I have attempted to integrate the two with some success, although in
what I was doing, once GWT was loaded and running, wicket had very
little do do any more (mostly page security and file upload tasks). I
have some idea on how you could use them together making client side
components in GWT that could be used in Wicket, but I have not had the
time to actually sit down and experiment.
The short version of the idea is that GWT has the ability to bind to
arbitrary elements in the page its sitting on, and you can pass data
back and forth... so my idea is to make your interactive components in
GWT, compile them, and write a wicket component that could make sure
all the GWT setup was done.
This would allow you to do client-side interactive components. doing
ajax calls with it would be more problematic, but still possible as
GWT does support other forms of remote calls than its built in protocol.
If such an integration is possible and works cleanly, it will be far
superior to YUI, but the components would be static (they have a
specific function and thats it, similar to YUI). Forget about
dynamically building GWT components within wicket. although I think it
might be possible, I think it would be pretty hacky and not worth your
time.
- Brill Pappin
On 8-Apr-09, at 9:11 AM, Casper Bang wrote:
> I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It
> seems
> to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on
> code, not
> markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
> maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
> readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The
> bennefit
> of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade
> nicer and
> the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?
>
> /Casper
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: GWT vs. Wicket?
Posted by Sergey Didenko <se...@gmail.com>.
Casper, for the case when you can not enforce your users to have
javascript, it's more worthwhile to compare Wicket to Tapestry5.
I'm evaluating the latter right now.
On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Casper Bang <ca...@jbr.dk> wrote:
> I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It seems
> to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on code, not
> markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
> maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
> readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The bennefit
> of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade nicer and
> the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?
>
> /Casper
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org