You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@tapestry.apache.org by Alex Shneyderman <a....@gmail.com> on 2007/08/22 10:13:02 UTC
wicket vs tapestry ?
I just started to look for a component based framework. I came across
both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard not to as you guys
share the same host) but I kind of fail to see what the differences
are?
>From my limited experiments with both, wicket and tapestry seem to be
quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything I am not seeing?
Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs tapestry?
Alex.
PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I just feel that I will
need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Daniel Jue <te...@gmail.com>.
First let me say there seems to be quite a rivalry between the users
of the frameworks. We've even had wicket fan boys join the Tapestry
list with the sole intent of trolling.
One difference I know is that Wicket stores a lot more information in
the session than Tapestry does. At it's core, Tapestry is much
different. Please search past postings on the mailing list for some
details. There are also some posts on Howard Lewis Ship's blog that
specify some of the differences.
On 8/22/07, Alex Shneyderman <a....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just started to look for a component based framework. I came across
> both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard not to as you guys
> share the same host) but I kind of fail to see what the differences
> are?
>
> From my limited experiments with both, wicket and tapestry seem to be
> quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything I am not seeing?
> Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs tapestry?
>
> Alex.
>
> PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I just feel that I will
> need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ? (Back Button Detection-Support)
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 8/23/07, William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org> wrote:
> Possible starting point for a client solution for back button detection/support:
>
> http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2005/10/26/ajax-handling-bookmarks-and-back-button.html?page=1
Thanks for suggesting. We have discussed that and other articles a
bunch of times already though.
The problem we're having is not so much that we don't know how ajax
back button support could work in the basics, but how it could work
together with Wicket's server side state.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
RE: wicket vs tapestry ? (Back Button Detection-Support)
Posted by William Hoover <wh...@nemours.org>.
Possible starting point for a client solution for back button detection/support:
http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2005/10/26/ajax-handling-bookmarks-and-back-button.html?page=1
-----Original Message-----
From: Matej Knopp [mailto:matej.knopp@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 6:30 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Hi,
> 2) I like the back button support. My thinking is that extending Wicket's
> AJAX integration to also support the back button (somehow) is a must.
> Virtually everyone who uses Wicket will use it's AJAX functionality. Almost
> all of these will need solve this problem. Sure would be nice if it was
> included.
There are plans to do this. However, it's a complicate problem that a
simple solution won't cut. We have a server side part in place though.
It's the javascript that needs to be extended, but our resources are
too limited currently to do that.
> 3) The design-by-inheritance model (WebPage, AbstractBehavior, etc). has
> produced a somewhat fragmented library. Reminds me of the days of MFC.
> T5's approach in this respect seems quite attractive.
Would you mind elaborating on this a little? I kind of fail to see
what's wrong with inheritance and why are people avoiding it like a
plague nowadays.
Is it really that much better to have your code annotated and called
by reflection/bytecode generation? How discoverable such API is? How
can you navigate such code? (forget call hierarchy).
As a sidenote, I remember Igor building @OnBeforeRender like
annotations, but he wasn't very happy with it and neither was I.
-Matej
>
> Thanks for listening,
> Erik
>
> On 8/22/07, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > My story:
> >
> > I have been very satisfied Tapestry 3 used and T3 has
> > helped tremendously with building applications in the
> > past.
> >
> > Then I was busy doing other things although keeping
> > eye on T and recently I needed to build a live
> > prototype quickly, naturally my first reaction was to
> > pick up Dreamweaver and try Tapestry 5.
> >
> > T5 is amazingly good BUT I needed Ajax support and at
> > this moment Wicket makes leaps and bounds around T5 in
> > this area.
> >
> > So I abandoned T5 and started using Wicket - so far I
> > am very satisfied with it although worry if Wicket is
> > production grade for high traffic sites because of its
> > heavy use of HttpSession as storage.
> >
> > So for now I will use Wicket for prototyping and small
> > apps and keep my eye on T5. T4 is no-go for me - I am
> > too lazy
> >
> > --- Chris Chiappone <chiappone@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > > A colleague of mine and I had a discussion about
> > > this because he was
> > > sorting through new frameworks to use for a new
> > > project. I have been
> > > using Tapestry since v3 and wanted him to give it a
> > > try. Unfotunately
> > > he ended up picking Wicket because of the fear that
> > > Tapestry has
> > > issues with backward compatibility. I am now
> > > wondering if I made the
> > > right choice in choosing tapestry for my
> > > applications. He built his
> > > application quickly and it is impressive using
> > > Wickets built in AJAX
> > > components. Upgrading in Tapestry has been a pain
> > > going from 3 - 4
> > > and obviously 5 isn't even possible. I wish I could
> > > have choose tap 5
> > > for my latest project but it was too beta and
> > > doesn't play well with
> > > other frameworks, ie a large legacy app with a
> > > Struts like framework.
> > >
> > > Anyway its a hard decision, they both have plus' and
> > > minus'
> > >
> > > ~chris
> > >
> > > On 8/22/07, John <mm...@web.de> wrote:
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless
> > > you plane to use T4.
> > > >
> > > > Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very
> > > important advanced feature
> > > > in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent,
> > > WebPage or what ever.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think all frameworks will use the annotations in
> > > the future; the question
> > > > is when is available.
> > > >
> > > > T5 does and it's ready.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In other words, the real question you should ask
> > > "Do I want to use
> > > > annotations or classical framework?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the
> > > power of annotations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Alex Shneyderman" <a....@gmail.com>
> > > > To: < users@tapestry.apache.org>;
> > > <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
> > > > Subject: wicket vs tapestry ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I just started to look for a component based
> > > framework. I came across
> > > > > both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard
> > > not to as you guys
> > > > > share the same host) but I kind of fail to see
> > > what the differences
> > > > > are?
> > > > >
> > > > > From my limited experiments with both, wicket
> > > and tapestry seem to be
> > > > > quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything
> > > I am not seeing?
> > > > > Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs
> > > tapestry?
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex.
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I
> > > just feel that I will
> > > > > need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~chris
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Konstantin Ignatyev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
> > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add
> > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> > 263,000
> >
> > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
> > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
> > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 tapestry ?
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> 2) I like the back button support. My thinking is that extending Wicket's
> AJAX integration to also support the back button (somehow) is a must.
> Virtually everyone who uses Wicket will use it's AJAX functionality. Almost
> all of these will need solve this problem. Sure would be nice if it was
> included.
There are plans to do this. However, it's a complicate problem that a
simple solution won't cut. We have a server side part in place though.
It's the javascript that needs to be extended, but our resources are
too limited currently to do that.
> 3) The design-by-inheritance model (WebPage, AbstractBehavior, etc). has
> produced a somewhat fragmented library. Reminds me of the days of MFC.
> T5's approach in this respect seems quite attractive.
Would you mind elaborating on this a little? I kind of fail to see
what's wrong with inheritance and why are people avoiding it like a
plague nowadays.
Is it really that much better to have your code annotated and called
by reflection/bytecode generation? How discoverable such API is? How
can you navigate such code? (forget call hierarchy).
As a sidenote, I remember Igor building @OnBeforeRender like
annotations, but he wasn't very happy with it and neither was I.
-Matej
>
> Thanks for listening,
> Erik
>
> On 8/22/07, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > My story:
> >
> > I have been very satisfied Tapestry 3 used and T3 has
> > helped tremendously with building applications in the
> > past.
> >
> > Then I was busy doing other things although keeping
> > eye on T and recently I needed to build a live
> > prototype quickly, naturally my first reaction was to
> > pick up Dreamweaver and try Tapestry 5.
> >
> > T5 is amazingly good BUT I needed Ajax support and at
> > this moment Wicket makes leaps and bounds around T5 in
> > this area.
> >
> > So I abandoned T5 and started using Wicket - so far I
> > am very satisfied with it although worry if Wicket is
> > production grade for high traffic sites because of its
> > heavy use of HttpSession as storage.
> >
> > So for now I will use Wicket for prototyping and small
> > apps and keep my eye on T5. T4 is no-go for me - I am
> > too lazy
> >
> > --- Chris Chiappone <chiappone@gmail.com > wrote:
> >
> > > A colleague of mine and I had a discussion about
> > > this because he was
> > > sorting through new frameworks to use for a new
> > > project. I have been
> > > using Tapestry since v3 and wanted him to give it a
> > > try. Unfotunately
> > > he ended up picking Wicket because of the fear that
> > > Tapestry has
> > > issues with backward compatibility. I am now
> > > wondering if I made the
> > > right choice in choosing tapestry for my
> > > applications. He built his
> > > application quickly and it is impressive using
> > > Wickets built in AJAX
> > > components. Upgrading in Tapestry has been a pain
> > > going from 3 - 4
> > > and obviously 5 isn't even possible. I wish I could
> > > have choose tap 5
> > > for my latest project but it was too beta and
> > > doesn't play well with
> > > other frameworks, ie a large legacy app with a
> > > Struts like framework.
> > >
> > > Anyway its a hard decision, they both have plus' and
> > > minus'
> > >
> > > ~chris
> > >
> > > On 8/22/07, John <mm...@web.de> wrote:
> > > > Hi Alex,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless
> > > you plane to use T4.
> > > >
> > > > Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very
> > > important advanced feature
> > > > in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent,
> > > WebPage or what ever.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think all frameworks will use the annotations in
> > > the future; the question
> > > > is when is available.
> > > >
> > > > T5 does and it's ready.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > In other words, the real question you should ask
> > > "Do I want to use
> > > > annotations or classical framework?"
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the
> > > power of annotations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Alex Shneyderman" <a....@gmail.com>
> > > > To: < users@tapestry.apache.org>;
> > > <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
> > > > Subject: wicket vs tapestry ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >I just started to look for a component based
> > > framework. I came across
> > > > > both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard
> > > not to as you guys
> > > > > share the same host) but I kind of fail to see
> > > what the differences
> > > > > are?
> > > > >
> > > > > From my limited experiments with both, wicket
> > > and tapestry seem to be
> > > > > quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything
> > > I am not seeing?
> > > > > Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs
> > > tapestry?
> > > > >
> > > > > Alex.
> > > > >
> > > > > PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I
> > > just feel that I will
> > > > > need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > ~chris
> > >
> > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > Konstantin Ignatyev
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
> > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add
> > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> > 263,000
> >
> > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
> > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
> > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Erik Dreyer <er...@gmail.com>.
I have a similar story. In a commercial environment, we are using T3 very
heavily. We have benefitted tremendously from a component library that we
have added to over time. We have built a number of very similar
applications and so the component library has proven to be a great
advantage.
However...
T3, is essentially an abandoned framework. In the commercial setting, we
are struggling with how to proceed with a greenfield project. We are a bit
loathe to use our T3 for that, despite our large component library because
it is, like Latin, a 'dead' framework.
T5 isn't ready, so that's out.
I've been using Wicket (1.3 from SVN) on a side venture. I thought that I
would pick it up very quickly based on my experience in approaching web apps
using an event-driven component model. I found that I struggled a bit.
There are some very compelling features in Wicket and I have been enjoying
those tremendously. But I have spent too long trying to figure out the
"right" way to do some things in Wicket at times. This, perhaps, could just
be me.
This brings me to my next point. Based on our experience with Tapestry, my
current thinking is that UIs are essentially disposable anyway. View
technologies change so fast that a hot framework one day (Struts), is
scorned the next. If you have developed your application with good
separation of concerns, it should be a lot easier to replace the UI
technology. I like that Wicket has made a commitment to backwards
compatibility. This, however, can be a double-edged sword but that's
another topic. The idea here is that you want to pick something that will
have staying power, but at the same time prevent lock in.
I feel like I'm rambling a bit now so I'll just put in a couple thoughts
about Wicket:
1) Overall I really like it. The API is quite large tho and it can be
difficult to understand the intent of the design at times. I hope the
Wicket in Action book will help with that.
2) I like the back button support. My thinking is that extending Wicket's
AJAX integration to also support the back button (somehow) is a must.
Virtually everyone who uses Wicket will use it's AJAX functionality. Almost
all of these will need solve this problem. Sure would be nice if it was
included.
3) The design-by-inheritance model (WebPage, AbstractBehavior, etc). has
produced a somewhat fragmented library. Reminds me of the days of MFC.
T5's approach in this respect seems quite attractive.
Thanks for listening,
Erik
On 8/22/07, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My story:
>
> I have been very satisfied Tapestry 3 used and T3 has
> helped tremendously with building applications in the
> past.
>
> Then I was busy doing other things although keeping
> eye on T and recently I needed to build a live
> prototype quickly, naturally my first reaction was to
> pick up Dreamweaver and try Tapestry 5.
>
> T5 is amazingly good BUT I needed Ajax support and at
> this moment Wicket makes leaps and bounds around T5 in
> this area.
>
> So I abandoned T5 and started using Wicket - so far I
> am very satisfied with it although worry if Wicket is
> production grade for high traffic sites because of its
> heavy use of HttpSession as storage.
>
> So for now I will use Wicket for prototyping and small
> apps and keep my eye on T5. T4 is no-go for me - I am
> too lazy
>
> --- Chris Chiappone <chiappone@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > A colleague of mine and I had a discussion about
> > this because he was
> > sorting through new frameworks to use for a new
> > project. I have been
> > using Tapestry since v3 and wanted him to give it a
> > try. Unfotunately
> > he ended up picking Wicket because of the fear that
> > Tapestry has
> > issues with backward compatibility. I am now
> > wondering if I made the
> > right choice in choosing tapestry for my
> > applications. He built his
> > application quickly and it is impressive using
> > Wickets built in AJAX
> > components. Upgrading in Tapestry has been a pain
> > going from 3 - 4
> > and obviously 5 isn't even possible. I wish I could
> > have choose tap 5
> > for my latest project but it was too beta and
> > doesn't play well with
> > other frameworks, ie a large legacy app with a
> > Struts like framework.
> >
> > Anyway its a hard decision, they both have plus' and
> > minus'
> >
> > ~chris
> >
> > On 8/22/07, John <mm...@web.de> wrote:
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless
> > you plane to use T4.
> > >
> > > Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very
> > important advanced feature
> > > in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent,
> > WebPage or what ever.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think all frameworks will use the annotations in
> > the future; the question
> > > is when is available.
> > >
> > > T5 does and it's ready.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In other words, the real question you should ask
> > "Do I want to use
> > > annotations or classical framework?"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the
> > power of annotations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alex Shneyderman" <a....@gmail.com>
> > > To: < users@tapestry.apache.org>;
> > <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
> > > Subject: wicket vs tapestry ?
> > >
> > >
> > > >I just started to look for a component based
> > framework. I came across
> > > > both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard
> > not to as you guys
> > > > share the same host) but I kind of fail to see
> > what the differences
> > > > are?
> > > >
> > > > From my limited experiments with both, wicket
> > and tapestry seem to be
> > > > quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything
> > I am not seeing?
> > > > Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs
> > tapestry?
> > > >
> > > > Alex.
> > > >
> > > > PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I
> > just feel that I will
> > > > need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~chris
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev
>
>
>
>
> PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
> forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add
> 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> 263,000
>
> Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
> a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
> University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Erik Dreyer <er...@gmail.com>.
I have a similar story. In a commercial environment, we are using T3 very
heavily. We have benefitted tremendously from a component library that we
have added to over time. We have built a number of very similar
applications and so the component library has proven to be a great
advantage.
However...
T3, is essentially an abandoned framework. In the commercial setting, we
are struggling with how to proceed with a greenfield project. We are a bit
loathe to use our T3 for that, despite our large component library because
it is, like Latin, a 'dead' framework.
T5 isn't ready, so that's out.
I've been using Wicket (1.3 from SVN) on a side venture. I thought that I
would pick it up very quickly based on my experience in approaching web apps
using an event-driven component model. I found that I struggled a bit.
There are some very compelling features in Wicket and I have been enjoying
those tremendously. But I have spent too long trying to figure out the
"right" way to do some things in Wicket at times. This, perhaps, could just
be me.
This brings me to my next point. Based on our experience with Tapestry, my
current thinking is that UIs are essentially disposable anyway. View
technologies change so fast that a hot framework one day (Struts), is
scorned the next. If you have developed your application with good
separation of concerns, it should be a lot easier to replace the UI
technology. I like that Wicket has made a commitment to backwards
compatibility. This, however, can be a double-edged sword but that's
another topic. The idea here is that you want to pick something that will
have staying power, but at the same time prevent lock in.
I feel like I'm rambling a bit now so I'll just put in a couple thoughts
about Wicket:
1) Overall I really like it. The API is quite large tho and it can be
difficult to understand the intent of the design at times. I hope the
Wicket in Action book will help with that.
2) I like the back button support. My thinking is that extending Wicket's
AJAX integration to also support the back button (somehow) is a must.
Virtually everyone who uses Wicket will use it's AJAX functionality. Almost
all of these will need solve this problem. Sure would be nice if it was
included.
3) The design-by-inheritance model (WebPage, AbstractBehavior, etc). has
produced a somewhat fragmented library. Reminds me of the days of MFC.
T5's approach in this respect seems quite attractive.
Thanks for listening,
Erik
On 8/22/07, Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My story:
>
> I have been very satisfied Tapestry 3 used and T3 has
> helped tremendously with building applications in the
> past.
>
> Then I was busy doing other things although keeping
> eye on T and recently I needed to build a live
> prototype quickly, naturally my first reaction was to
> pick up Dreamweaver and try Tapestry 5.
>
> T5 is amazingly good BUT I needed Ajax support and at
> this moment Wicket makes leaps and bounds around T5 in
> this area.
>
> So I abandoned T5 and started using Wicket - so far I
> am very satisfied with it although worry if Wicket is
> production grade for high traffic sites because of its
> heavy use of HttpSession as storage.
>
> So for now I will use Wicket for prototyping and small
> apps and keep my eye on T5. T4 is no-go for me - I am
> too lazy
>
> --- Chris Chiappone <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > A colleague of mine and I had a discussion about
> > this because he was
> > sorting through new frameworks to use for a new
> > project. I have been
> > using Tapestry since v3 and wanted him to give it a
> > try. Unfotunately
> > he ended up picking Wicket because of the fear that
> > Tapestry has
> > issues with backward compatibility. I am now
> > wondering if I made the
> > right choice in choosing tapestry for my
> > applications. He built his
> > application quickly and it is impressive using
> > Wickets built in AJAX
> > components. Upgrading in Tapestry has been a pain
> > going from 3 - 4
> > and obviously 5 isn't even possible. I wish I could
> > have choose tap 5
> > for my latest project but it was too beta and
> > doesn't play well with
> > other frameworks, ie a large legacy app with a
> > Struts like framework.
> >
> > Anyway its a hard decision, they both have plus' and
> > minus'
> >
> > ~chris
> >
> > On 8/22/07, John <mm...@web.de> wrote:
> > > Hi Alex,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless
> > you plane to use T4.
> > >
> > > Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very
> > important advanced feature
> > > in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent,
> > WebPage or what ever.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I think all frameworks will use the annotations in
> > the future; the question
> > > is when is available.
> > >
> > > T5 does and it's ready.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > In other words, the real question you should ask
> > "Do I want to use
> > > annotations or classical framework?"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the
> > power of annotations.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Alex Shneyderman" <a....@gmail.com>
> > > To: <us...@tapestry.apache.org>;
> > <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
> > > Subject: wicket vs tapestry ?
> > >
> > >
> > > >I just started to look for a component based
> > framework. I came across
> > > > both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard
> > not to as you guys
> > > > share the same host) but I kind of fail to see
> > what the differences
> > > > are?
> > > >
> > > > From my limited experiments with both, wicket
> > and tapestry seem to be
> > > > quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything
> > I am not seeing?
> > > > Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs
> > tapestry?
> > > >
> > > > Alex.
> > > >
> > > > PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I
> > just feel that I will
> > > > need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ~chris
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> Konstantin Ignatyev
>
>
>
>
> PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen
> million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of
> tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between
> forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add
> 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by
> 263,000
>
> Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs
> a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State
> University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Konstantin Ignatyev <kg...@yahoo.com>.
My story:
I have been very satisfied Tapestry 3 used and T3 has
helped tremendously with building applications in the
past.
Then I was busy doing other things although keeping
eye on T and recently I needed to build a live
prototype quickly, naturally my first reaction was to
pick up Dreamweaver and try Tapestry 5.
T5 is amazingly good BUT I needed Ajax support and at
this moment Wicket makes leaps and bounds around T5 in
this area.
So I abandoned T5 and started using Wicket - so far I
am very satisfied with it although worry if Wicket is
production grade for high traffic sites because of its
heavy use of HttpSession as storage.
So for now I will use Wicket for prototyping and small
apps and keep my eye on T5. T4 is no-go for me - I am
too lazy
--- Chris Chiappone <ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A colleague of mine and I had a discussion about
> this because he was
> sorting through new frameworks to use for a new
> project. I have been
> using Tapestry since v3 and wanted him to give it a
> try. Unfotunately
> he ended up picking Wicket because of the fear that
> Tapestry has
> issues with backward compatibility. I am now
> wondering if I made the
> right choice in choosing tapestry for my
> applications. He built his
> application quickly and it is impressive using
> Wickets built in AJAX
> components. Upgrading in Tapestry has been a pain
> going from 3 - 4
> and obviously 5 isn't even possible. I wish I could
> have choose tap 5
> for my latest project but it was too beta and
> doesn't play well with
> other frameworks, ie a large legacy app with a
> Struts like framework.
>
> Anyway its a hard decision, they both have plus' and
> minus'
>
> ~chris
>
> On 8/22/07, John <mm...@web.de> wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> >
> >
> >
> > I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless
> you plane to use T4.
> >
> > Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very
> important advanced feature
> > in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent,
> WebPage or what ever.
> >
> >
> >
> > I think all frameworks will use the annotations in
> the future; the question
> > is when is available.
> >
> > T5 does and it's ready.
> >
> >
> >
> > In other words, the real question you should ask
> "Do I want to use
> > annotations or classical framework?"
> >
> >
> >
> > Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the
> power of annotations.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Alex Shneyderman" <a....@gmail.com>
> > To: <us...@tapestry.apache.org>;
> <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
> > Subject: wicket vs tapestry ?
> >
> >
> > >I just started to look for a component based
> framework. I came across
> > > both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard
> not to as you guys
> > > share the same host) but I kind of fail to see
> what the differences
> > > are?
> > >
> > > From my limited experiments with both, wicket
> and tapestry seem to be
> > > quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything
> I am not seeing?
> > > Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs
> tapestry?
> > >
> > > Alex.
> > >
> > > PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I
> just feel that I will
> > > need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
> > >
> > >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
> users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ~chris
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
Konstantin Ignatyev
PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by 263,000
Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Chris Chiappone <ch...@gmail.com>.
A colleague of mine and I had a discussion about this because he was
sorting through new frameworks to use for a new project. I have been
using Tapestry since v3 and wanted him to give it a try. Unfotunately
he ended up picking Wicket because of the fear that Tapestry has
issues with backward compatibility. I am now wondering if I made the
right choice in choosing tapestry for my applications. He built his
application quickly and it is impressive using Wickets built in AJAX
components. Upgrading in Tapestry has been a pain going from 3 - 4
and obviously 5 isn't even possible. I wish I could have choose tap 5
for my latest project but it was too beta and doesn't play well with
other frameworks, ie a large legacy app with a Struts like framework.
Anyway its a hard decision, they both have plus' and minus'
~chris
On 8/22/07, John <mm...@web.de> wrote:
> Hi Alex,
>
>
>
> I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless you plane to use T4.
>
> Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very important advanced feature
> in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent, WebPage or what ever.
>
>
>
> I think all frameworks will use the annotations in the future; the question
> is when is available.
>
> T5 does and it's ready.
>
>
>
> In other words, the real question you should ask "Do I want to use
> annotations or classical framework?"
>
>
>
> Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the power of annotations.
>
>
>
>
>
> Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alex Shneyderman" <a....@gmail.com>
> To: <us...@tapestry.apache.org>; <us...@wicket.apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
> Subject: wicket vs tapestry ?
>
>
> >I just started to look for a component based framework. I came across
> > both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard not to as you guys
> > share the same host) but I kind of fail to see what the differences
> > are?
> >
> > From my limited experiments with both, wicket and tapestry seem to be
> > quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything I am not seeing?
> > Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs tapestry?
> >
> > Alex.
> >
> > PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I just feel that I will
> > need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
--
~chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by John <mm...@web.de>.
Hi Alex,
I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless you plane to use T4.
Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very important advanced feature
in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent, WebPage or what ever.
I think all frameworks will use the annotations in the future; the question
is when is available.
T5 does and it's ready.
In other words, the real question you should ask "Do I want to use
annotations or classical framework?"
Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the power of annotations.
Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alex Shneyderman" <a....@gmail.com>
To: <us...@tapestry.apache.org>; <us...@wicket.apache.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM
Subject: wicket vs tapestry ?
>I just started to look for a component based framework. I came across
> both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard not to as you guys
> share the same host) but I kind of fail to see what the differences
> are?
>
> From my limited experiments with both, wicket and tapestry seem to be
> quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything I am not seeing?
> Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs tapestry?
>
> Alex.
>
> PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I just feel that I will
> need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tapestry.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tapestry.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Swaroop Belur <sw...@gmail.com>.
Hi
I have been using wicket for quite some time now. Prior to this I worked
on tapestry for a short time . (In fact i implemented the same pages
which i did in tapestry in wicket also)
I may not be able to give you the right answer but i can definitely say this
the learning curve in tapestry is quite high . Wicket is very easy to learn
and especially easy to write ur own components
But there is one important point i want to share. Whenever u choose a
framework, it is
very important to check how good the support is in the forums. That is
biggest difference
for me. Because even if framework is good, u r bound to run into issues.
Just check out the wicket forum. The response time for a question is very
less.
Sometimes u will have more than one response. Thats makes a very BIG
difference - atleast for me
-swaroop
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Xavier Hanin <xa...@gmail.com>.
I don't know tapestry very well, but there's a page in the wiki with some
information about the difference between the two frameworks:
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/for-tapestry-users.html
Xavier
On 8/22/07, Alex Shneyderman <a....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just started to look for a component based framework. I came across
> both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard not to as you guys
> share the same host) but I kind of fail to see what the differences
> are?
>
> From my limited experiments with both, wicket and tapestry seem to be
> quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything I am not seeing?
> Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs tapestry?
>
> Alex.
>
> PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I just feel that I will
> need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
--
Xavier Hanin - Independent Java Consultant
http://xhab.blogspot.com/
http://incubator.apache.org/ivy/
http://www.xoocode.org/
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Johan Compagner <jc...@gmail.com>.
i think igor has some more info...
On 8/22/07, Alex Shneyderman <a....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I just started to look for a component based framework. I came across
> both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard not to as you guys
> share the same host) but I kind of fail to see what the differences
> are?
>
> From my limited experiments with both, wicket and tapestry seem to be
> quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything I am not seeing?
> Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs tapestry?
>
> Alex.
>
> PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I just feel that I will
> need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-(
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> > If you're interested, a contribution for the address book example with
> > exPOJO/ JPOX would be more than welcome.
>
> Definitely, not a problem. When do you need it by?
Whenever you feel like it.
> Where can I find the spec for the address book app?
No spec, only code :)
https://wicket-stuff.svn.sourceforge.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/trunk/wicket-phonebook
It's phonebook, not addressbook btw. Sorry my wrong. :)
Cheers,
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
RE: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Chris Colman <ch...@stepaheadsoftware.com>.
> On 8/22/07, Chris Colman <ch...@stepaheadsoftware.com> wrote:
> > Hi Eelco,
> >
> > I saw you mention Hibernate in the intro but I've been using JPOX
with
> > great success with Wicket also. You might want to mention that in
the
> > book or new comers might think Wicket is a Hibernate only framework.
> >
> > I use JPOX through the open source exPOJO (shameless plug!
> > www.expojo.com) which is a light weight implementation of the
"Exposed
> > Domain Model Pattern" popularized in another Manning book, "POJOs in
> > Action" by Chris Richardson. exPOJO also acts like an ORM agnostic
layer
> > over your chosen transparent persistence technology (currently
supports
> > JPOX and Hibernate) so that you can keep your code fairly
independent of
> > the underlying persistence library, allowing you to easily port from
one
> > to another to do performance comparisons etc.,
>
> Hi Chris,
>
> We could definitively mention JPOX. Please help us not forget (we
> still have to write the chapter on database driven apps) :)
>
> If you're interested, a contribution for the address book example with
> exPOJO/ JPOX would be more than welcome.
Definitely, not a problem. When do you need it by?
Where can I find the spec for the address book app?
>
> Thanks,
>
> 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 tapestry ?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 8/22/07, Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You mean the wicket-phonebook?
Yeah.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
You mean the wicket-phonebook?
Martijn
--
Wicket joins the Apache Software Foundation as Apache Wicket
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta2 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta2/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 8/22/07, Chris Colman <ch...@stepaheadsoftware.com> wrote:
> Hi Eelco,
>
> I saw you mention Hibernate in the intro but I've been using JPOX with
> great success with Wicket also. You might want to mention that in the
> book or new comers might think Wicket is a Hibernate only framework.
>
> I use JPOX through the open source exPOJO (shameless plug!
> www.expojo.com) which is a light weight implementation of the "Exposed
> Domain Model Pattern" popularized in another Manning book, "POJOs in
> Action" by Chris Richardson. exPOJO also acts like an ORM agnostic layer
> over your chosen transparent persistence technology (currently supports
> JPOX and Hibernate) so that you can keep your code fairly independent of
> the underlying persistence library, allowing you to easily port from one
> to another to do performance comparisons etc.,
Hi Chris,
We could definitively mention JPOX. Please help us not forget (we
still have to write the chapter on database driven apps) :)
If you're interested, a contribution for the address book example with
exPOJO/ JPOX would be more than welcome.
Thanks,
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
RE: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Chris Colman <ch...@stepaheadsoftware.com>.
Hi Eelco,
I saw you mention Hibernate in the intro but I've been using JPOX with
great success with Wicket also. You might want to mention that in the
book or new comers might think Wicket is a Hibernate only framework.
I use JPOX through the open source exPOJO (shameless plug!
www.expojo.com) which is a light weight implementation of the "Exposed
Domain Model Pattern" popularized in another Manning book, "POJOs in
Action" by Chris Richardson. exPOJO also acts like an ORM agnostic layer
over your chosen transparent persistence technology (currently supports
JPOX and Hibernate) so that you can keep your code fairly independent of
the underlying persistence library, allowing you to easily port from one
to another to do performance comparisons etc.,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eelco Hillenius [mailto:eelco.hillenius@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 22 August 2007 7:00 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
>
> > Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> > > You can download the first chapter of Wicket In Action for free
here:
> > > http://manning.com/dashorst/ and some chapters of Tapestry In
Action
> > >
> > >
> > Wow, Wicket In Action, we're all were waiting for it :-)
> > Is this early access edition mature enough to buy or it's better to
> wait?
>
> LOL. I don't know. If you buy early access, you'll get the updates
> when they are available, so it doesn't really matter I think. We're
> still waiting for Manning to put two more chapters online, and in the
> background Martijn and I are working our asses of to get the rest of
> the chapters done (which will still be at least a few weeks, but at
> least there is stuff to get started, and that will only grow).
>
> 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 tapestry ?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> > You can download the first chapter of Wicket In Action for free here:
> > http://manning.com/dashorst/ and some chapters of Tapestry In Action
> >
> >
> Wow, Wicket In Action, we're all were waiting for it :-)
> Is this early access edition mature enough to buy or it's better to wait?
LOL. I don't know. If you buy early access, you'll get the updates
when they are available, so it doesn't really matter I think. We're
still waiting for Manning to put two more chapters online, and in the
background Martijn and I are working our asses of to get the rest of
the chapters done (which will still be at least a few weeks, but at
least there is stuff to get started, and that will only grow).
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Andrew Klochkov <a....@webalta-team.com>.
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> You can download the first chapter of Wicket In Action for free here:
> http://manning.com/dashorst/ and some chapters of Tapestry In Action
>
>
Wow, Wicket In Action, we're all were waiting for it :-)
Is this early access edition mature enough to buy or it's better to wait?
--
Andrew Klochkov
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Igor Vaynberg <ig...@gmail.com>.
On 8/22/07, Onno Scheffers <on...@piraya.nl> wrote:
>
>
> > It's ok to be a control freak about it. But you should measure, not go
> > by your hunch. :)
> >
>
> You're right of course.
> But since I'm currently learning, I can't help wondering at each step
> where the data gets stored magically.
there is about zero magic in this. the page object you create is stored in
sessionstore. that means all the components and their fields are stored in
sessionstore as well. page is just an object, and it is just put into the
sessionstore - thats it - no magic.
all components have a detach() callback before they are put into the
sessionstore. they can implement that callback in order to shed some state
that can be recreated in another request. components pass this call onto
their models. this is an easy way to optimize state as you go. for example
there is no need to store a fully loadded database bean, because instead you
can just store its pk and later recreate the state of the bean by querying
by pk.
as far as failover goes, which is the reason you would replicate the session
across the cluster, what wicket does is a bit unique. the default
disksessionstore will save off pages onto disk and only keep the current
page in httpsession. that means your session is small (only contains a
single page per pagemap) and you have some failover support. failover will
work fine as long as this doesnt happen:
user accesses node A
node A crashes
users presses backbutton
presses link
gets page expired error
this happens because only the current page is kept in session. you can also
replicate the diskstore for full failover support, matej is working on that
and i believe there is a project somewhere.
this is only really needed for "dumb" container replication. if your servlet
container is smart enough to only replicate a session attribute when it has
been set instead of on every request you can do just fine with
httpsessionstore imho. whenever a page is changed wicket will call
sessionstore.setattribute on it, but only if it changed.
-igor
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> But since I'm currently learning, I can't help wondering at each step
> where the data gets stored magically. Likely that will go away once I
> know my way around Wicket. It's also not a complaint, just part of
> getting to know the best way of doing things.
I think it's a very good idea you have that in the back of your mind
all the time. I hope it doesn't spoil the experience too much, and
that you find Wicket's memory tradeoff acceptable.
Cheers,
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Onno Scheffers <on...@piraya.nl>.
> Unfortunately, that's an assumption that many people make. But say
> that you're not worried about optimizing and one session means about
> 100kb (on the high side, as with optimizing in my experience you
> should be able to bring that to 15-30kb)... That means you can support
> 10,000 concurrent sessions with one gig of RAM.
>
If the application and VM don't use any memory themselves that is :o)
I'm not that bothered about memory usage by the way. When a webapp is
distributed over multiple servers, the session data needs to be
serialized between the different servers. That's the main reason I try
to keep as little data on the session as possible.
> It's ok to be a control freak about it. But you should measure, not go
> by your hunch. :)
>
You're right of course.
But since I'm currently learning, I can't help wondering at each step
where the data gets stored magically. Likely that will go away once I
know my way around Wicket. It's also not a complaint, just part of
getting to know the best way of doing things.
> Best thing about both is that they are component oriented frameworks.
> Big improvement over model 2 frameworks imho.
>
I fully agree :o)
regards,
Onno
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
> I personally feel more in control with Tapestry since every part of the
> framework can be tweaked, overridden and enhanced easily once you know
> your way around the framework
Wicket can be tweaked in every imaginable way either, but some things
are easier than others.
> and you have full control of what objects are stored on the session
Even that is true for Wicket (see ISessionStore), though you'll always
have to deal with some overhead.
> With Wicket I can quickly start developing pages but it feels like I
> need to think much harder about how to do things without filling up the
> Session with data,
Unfortunately, that's an assumption that many people make. But say
that you're not worried about optimizing and one session means about
100kb (on the high side, as with optimizing in my experience you
should be able to bring that to 15-30kb)... That means you can support
10,000 concurrent sessions with one gig of RAM.
I think if there is anything a bit more tricky with Wicket compared to
other frameworks, it is bookmarkability. To the upside, everything you
do with Wicket is safe by default. The downside is that it is not
bookmarkable by default.
> since it tries much harder to be smart for you behind
> the scenes. It does this to make the developers more productive, but I
> don't always trust that kind of smartness and I'm always afraid that any
> List I'm showing gets stored on the session without me knowing about it.
> I'm probably just a control-freak and this is just part of the Wicket
> learning curve. I'm sure I'll feel more comfortable once I get to know
> it better.
It's ok to be a control freak about it. But you should measure, not go
by your hunch. :)
> That said, once you know Tapestry, it is very productive and really a
> pleasure to use. As is Wicket from what I've seen so far.
Best thing about both is that they are component oriented frameworks.
Big improvement over model 2 frameworks imho.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Onno Scheffers <on...@piraya.nl>.
> You can download the first chapter of Wicket In Action for free here:
> http://manning.com/dashorst/ and some chapters of Tapestry In Action
> here: http://manning.com/lewisship/
>
Actually, Tapestry in Action is pretty old and covers only Tapestry 3. I
would advice downloading chapters 1-4 of 'Enjoying Web Development With
Tapestry' (http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDT). This covers Tapestry 4. A
lot of changes have been made from Tapestry 3 to Tapestry 4.
I'm just starting to learn Wicket now and I can confirm that learning
Wicket is easier that learning Tapestry. I'm sure others on this list
can tell you a lot more about Wicket than I can.
I personally feel more in control with Tapestry since every part of the
framework can be tweaked, overridden and enhanced easily once you know
your way around the framework and you have full control of what objects
are stored on the session and when and you can let code inject pure html
into the page wherever you like if you want to.
With Wicket I can quickly start developing pages but it feels like I
need to think much harder about how to do things without filling up the
Session with data, since it tries much harder to be smart for you behind
the scenes. It does this to make the developers more productive, but I
don't always trust that kind of smartness and I'm always afraid that any
List I'm showing gets stored on the session without me knowing about it.
I'm probably just a control-freak and this is just part of the Wicket
learning curve. I'm sure I'll feel more comfortable once I get to know
it better.
Some things I didn't like about Tapestry:
Classes are abstract (a lot of stuff like getters/setters etc. are
injected into the classes at runtime). It saves on boilerplate code, but
makes testing harder and makes things less obvious. A lot of injections
are done using either XML or Annotations with Strings of text in them.
This doesn't give you any type-safety and forces you to continuously
browse through the documentation. The learning curve is pretty steep
(mainly because of the notorious rewind-phase that confuses a lot of
developers) and it seems that every major release is incompatible with
previous releases, forcing you to re-learn a lot.
That said, once you know Tapestry, it is very productive and really a
pleasure to use. As is Wicket from what I've seen so far.
Regards,
Onno
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: wicket vs tapestry ?
Posted by Eelco Hillenius <ee...@gmail.com>.
On 8/22/07, Alex Shneyderman <a....@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just started to look for a component based framework. I came across
> both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard not to as you guys
> share the same host) but I kind of fail to see what the differences
> are?
>
> From my limited experiments with both, wicket and tapestry seem to be
> quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything I am not seeing?
> Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs tapestry?
The best thing you can do is give them both a spin. They are quite
different really; I'm sure you'll find that out once you code a few
examples with them.
You can download the first chapter of Wicket In Action for free here:
http://manning.com/dashorst/ and some chapters of Tapestry In Action
here: http://manning.com/lewisship/
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org