You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Doug Leeper <do...@yahoo.com> on 2007/09/14 14:54:46 UTC
ImageButton vs Image and SharedResources
Why doesn't the ImageButton follow the same behavior as Image when utilizing
Resources. With Image I have the ability to add a SharedResource with a
ValueMap. The ImageButton only allows me to add a Resource at construction
with no Values. Was this intended or should I file a request for
enhancement?
If this was intended, how should I go about having an ImageButton utilize a
SharedResource with specific parameters?
Thanks
- Doug
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ImageButton-vs-Image-and-SharedResources-tf4442320.html#a12674677
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 vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org>.
Thank you for your input Scott. I have noticed the same trend in my encounters with JSF.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Swank [mailto:scott.swank@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 2:04 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
When we chose between JSF and Wicket our conclusions were:
1. JSF is more compact because tags involve fewer lines of code than
Java components.
2. Wicket is much easier to extend than JSF. An example is in order.
We sell a customer a hotel room reservation & tickets to two different
shows. We need to get the name of the person checking into the room
and the person picking up the tickets. Since these are usually the
same person we want to use JavaScript to capture the first/last names
entered for the 1st item and populate them in the subsequent items.
In Wicket this was a simple Behavior that we coded right up. Creating
analogous new functionality in JSF is much more work. (I'm not saying
that JSF doesn't have some lovely way to accomplish the above, rather
I'm pointing out that creating new functionality that JSF doesn't
already enable is significantly more work.)
3. When we developed sample apps in Wicket & JSF the Wicket app was
complete in 1 week, while after two weeks the JSF app was struggling
with technology decisions and ultimately incomplete. This was in
spite of the fact that many of us had developed in JSF before, while
no one had done any development in Wicket.
4. The developers and users on the Wicket e-mail list are insanely helpful.
Cheers,
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by Scott Swank <sc...@gmail.com>.
When we chose between JSF and Wicket our conclusions were:
1. JSF is more compact because tags involve fewer lines of code than
Java components.
2. Wicket is much easier to extend than JSF. An example is in order.
We sell a customer a hotel room reservation & tickets to two different
shows. We need to get the name of the person checking into the room
and the person picking up the tickets. Since these are usually the
same person we want to use JavaScript to capture the first/last names
entered for the 1st item and populate them in the subsequent items.
In Wicket this was a simple Behavior that we coded right up. Creating
analogous new functionality in JSF is much more work. (I'm not saying
that JSF doesn't have some lovely way to accomplish the above, rather
I'm pointing out that creating new functionality that JSF doesn't
already enable is significantly more work.)
3. When we developed sample apps in Wicket & JSF the Wicket app was
complete in 1 week, while after two weeks the JSF app was struggling
with technology decisions and ultimately incomplete. This was in
spite of the fact that many of us had developed in JSF before, while
no one had done any development in Wicket.
4. The developers and users on the Wicket e-mail list are insanely helpful.
Cheers,
Scott
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
RE: Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org>.
Eelco,
I appreciate your input- very objective answer!
-----Original Message-----
From: Eelco Hillenius [mailto:eelco.hillenius@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:32 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org> wrote:
> Our company is in the process of evaluating the feasibility in transitioning our UI framework to Wicket. In doing so, I stumbled upon this article
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/a-wicket-user-tries-jsf/ that does a nice job of composing a simple side-by-side comparison of JSF and Wicket.
>
> We are currently using JSF/MyFaces/Tomahawk/Trinidad and have found it to be quite a disappointment. I have personally been developing JSF applications for several years and have encountered numerous issues with the framework (not to mention the specification, components, etc.). I never understood how JSF can be referred to as a true MVC framework when it maintains logic within the view in the form of EL (thus the Wicket evaluation).
>
> With that said, I hear the argument from JSF/Seam developers (as seen in the article mentioned above) that comparing Seam with Wicket is a better/fair comparison. I have no experience with Seam and would like to know if there is anyone using Wicket in this forum that has switched from Seam to Wicket that could shed some light on the issue?
You are refering to the JSF/ Seam combination, but mind you that while
Seam started out as a fix for JSF, it nowadays tries to be an
independent framework to sit in between UI frameworks and the typical
business layer. For the latter purpose, we have some basic support for
Seam, see http://chillenious.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/added-initial-seam-support-for-wicket/
As for the JSF/ Seam combination. I think the best thing you can do is
play around with it yourself and see what you like best. My personal
opinion is that though I can see that it is probably an improvement
over regular JSF, I can imagine the programming model to be
problematic for large projects, mainly because it depends on path
expressions (global strings really) everywhere and I think this might
be very hard to untangle when you do more complex stuff. It certainly
is very different from Wicket's strategy of plain Java programming/
static typing etc.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org> wrote:
> Our company is in the process of evaluating the feasibility in transitioning our UI framework to Wicket. In doing so, I stumbled upon this article
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/a-wicket-user-tries-jsf/ that does a nice job of composing a simple side-by-side comparison of JSF and Wicket.
>
> We are currently using JSF/MyFaces/Tomahawk/Trinidad and have found it to be quite a disappointment. I have personally been developing JSF applications for several years and have encountered numerous issues with the framework (not to mention the specification, components, etc.). I never understood how JSF can be referred to as a true MVC framework when it maintains logic within the view in the form of EL (thus the Wicket evaluation).
>
> With that said, I hear the argument from JSF/Seam developers (as seen in the article mentioned above) that comparing Seam with Wicket is a better/fair comparison. I have no experience with Seam and would like to know if there is anyone using Wicket in this forum that has switched from Seam to Wicket that could shed some light on the issue?
You are refering to the JSF/ Seam combination, but mind you that while
Seam started out as a fix for JSF, it nowadays tries to be an
independent framework to sit in between UI frameworks and the typical
business layer. For the latter purpose, we have some basic support for
Seam, see http://chillenious.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/added-initial-seam-support-for-wicket/
As for the JSF/ Seam combination. I think the best thing you can do is
play around with it yourself and see what you like best. My personal
opinion is that though I can see that it is probably an improvement
over regular JSF, I can imagine the programming model to be
problematic for large projects, mainly because it depends on path
expressions (global strings really) everywhere and I think this might
be very hard to untangle when you do more complex stuff. It certainly
is very different from Wicket's strategy of plain Java programming/
static typing etc.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
which part is that exactly? im not that familiar with it.
-igor
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org> wrote:
>
> ...to be "politically" correct, "Application Framework", but I'm referring
> to the portion of the framework that addresses the UI.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:igor.vaynberg@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:22 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
>
>
> I didnt know Seam was a UI framework...
>
> -Igor
>
>
> On 9/14/07, William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org> wrote:
> >
> > Our company is in the process of evaluating the feasibility in
> > transitioning our UI framework to Wicket. In doing so, I stumbled upon
> this
> > article
> > http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/a-wicket-user-tries-jsf/ that
> > does a nice job of composing a simple side-by-side comparison of JSF and
> > Wicket.
> >
> > We are currently using JSF/MyFaces/Tomahawk/Trinidad and have found it
> to
> > be quite a disappointment. I have personally been developing JSF
> > applications for several years and have encountered numerous issues with
> the
> > framework (not to mention the specification, components, etc.). I never
> > understood how JSF can be referred to as a true MVC framework when it
> > maintains logic within the view in the form of EL (thus the Wicket
> > evaluation).
> >
> > With that said, I hear the argument from JSF/Seam developers (as seen in
> > the article mentioned above) that comparing Seam with Wicket is a
> > better/fair comparison. I have no experience with Seam and would like to
> > know if there is anyone using Wicket in this forum that has switched
> from
> > Seam to Wicket that could shed some light on the issue?
> >
> > Thanks in advance!
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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 vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org>.
...to be "politically" correct, "Application Framework", but I'm referring to the portion of the framework that addresses the UI.
-----Original Message-----
From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:igor.vaynberg@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, September 14, 2007 12:22 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
I didnt know Seam was a UI framework...
-Igor
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org> wrote:
>
> Our company is in the process of evaluating the feasibility in
> transitioning our UI framework to Wicket. In doing so, I stumbled upon this
> article
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/a-wicket-user-tries-jsf/ that
> does a nice job of composing a simple side-by-side comparison of JSF and
> Wicket.
>
> We are currently using JSF/MyFaces/Tomahawk/Trinidad and have found it to
> be quite a disappointment. I have personally been developing JSF
> applications for several years and have encountered numerous issues with the
> framework (not to mention the specification, components, etc.). I never
> understood how JSF can be referred to as a true MVC framework when it
> maintains logic within the view in the form of EL (thus the Wicket
> evaluation).
>
> With that said, I hear the argument from JSF/Seam developers (as seen in
> the article mentioned above) that comparing Seam with Wicket is a
> better/fair comparison. I have no experience with Seam and would like to
> know if there is anyone using Wicket in this forum that has switched from
> Seam to Wicket that could shed some light on the issue?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
I didnt know Seam was a UI framework...
-Igor
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org> wrote:
>
> Our company is in the process of evaluating the feasibility in
> transitioning our UI framework to Wicket. In doing so, I stumbled upon this
> article
> http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/a-wicket-user-tries-jsf/ that
> does a nice job of composing a simple side-by-side comparison of JSF and
> Wicket.
>
> We are currently using JSF/MyFaces/Tomahawk/Trinidad and have found it to
> be quite a disappointment. I have personally been developing JSF
> applications for several years and have encountered numerous issues with the
> framework (not to mention the specification, components, etc.). I never
> understood how JSF can be referred to as a true MVC framework when it
> maintains logic within the view in the form of EL (thus the Wicket
> evaluation).
>
> With that said, I hear the argument from JSF/Seam developers (as seen in
> the article mentioned above) that comparing Seam with Wicket is a
> better/fair comparison. I have no experience with Seam and would like to
> know if there is anyone using Wicket in this forum that has switched from
> Seam to Wicket that could shed some light on the issue?
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
Posted by William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org>.
Our company is in the process of evaluating the feasibility in transitioning our UI framework to Wicket. In doing so, I stumbled upon this article
http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2007/05/14/a-wicket-user-tries-jsf/ that does a nice job of composing a simple side-by-side comparison of JSF and Wicket.
We are currently using JSF/MyFaces/Tomahawk/Trinidad and have found it to be quite a disappointment. I have personally been developing JSF applications for several years and have encountered numerous issues with the framework (not to mention the specification, components, etc.). I never understood how JSF can be referred to as a true MVC framework when it maintains logic within the view in the form of EL (thus the Wicket evaluation).
With that said, I hear the argument from JSF/Seam developers (as seen in the article mentioned above) that comparing Seam with Wicket is a better/fair comparison. I have no experience with Seam and would like to know if there is anyone using Wicket in this forum that has switched from Seam to Wicket that could shed some light on the issue?
Thanks in advance!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: ImageButton vs Image and SharedResources
Posted by Doug Leeper <do...@yahoo.com>.
Martijn,
I didn't mean to infer that you "wouldn't accept the RFE". Sorry about the
confusion.
I did create an RFE (WICKET-975) and attached the patch. I hope I followed
the guidelines.
It was fairly easy to adjust as I followed the Image behaviors for the
resource reference.
BTW...I didn't see the SubmitLink. I am learning the API and learning new
things everyday. I need to say I am very impressed with the coverage and
behaviors of Wicket. Kudos to the team.
- Doug
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ImageButton-vs-Image-and-SharedResources-tf4442320.html#a12678191
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: ImageButton vs Image and SharedResources
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 9/14/07, Doug Leeper <do...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks...I will file an RFE.
>
> However, given that the probability that this won't be accepted...how should
I didn't say we wouldn't accept your RFE, it was a remark in general.
It never hurts to file a RFE, just don't expect us to honor every
single one of them. Judging from your request it seems like a goog
thing to do, it just might take a while. If you bring in a patch, it
will most likely be looked at earlier, and maybe even integrated
before 1.3 final.
> how should I proceed to have a Link submit a Form
Take a look at SubmitLink.
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: ImageButton vs Image and SharedResources
Posted by Doug Leeper <do...@yahoo.com>.
Thanks...I will file an RFE.
However, given that the probability that this won't be accepted...how should
I proceed to have a Link submit a Form?
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/ImageButton-vs-Image-and-SharedResources-tf4442320.html#a12674987
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: ImageButton vs Image and SharedResources
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On 9/14/07, Doug Leeper <do...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Why doesn't the ImageButton follow the same behavior as Image when utilizing
> Resources. With Image I have the ability to add a SharedResource with a
> ValueMap. The ImageButton only allows me to add a Resource at construction
> with no Values. Was this intended or should I file a request for
> enhancement?
You can always file a RFE, it might be turned down of course :).
I think it is one of those components that never got much love from
the core developers, it is a very old component (since the 0.9
versions IIRC), and never used very much, at least not in applications
I have worked on.
This is similar to the BoxedBorder, while a nice example of how a
Border component works, in practice not a very good solution to
surround some markup with a thin black line (CSS is much better suited
for that).
In this case, I'd file a rfe.
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org