On Oct 7, 2009, at 09:43, Michael Mosmann wrote:
And regarding the excellent wiki page: that's one thing I don't like
about wicket. Documentation is
not were in belongs, in the code or at least checked in with the
code.
I always have to figure
it out by myself if some wiki page is up-to-date or not.
I really never had such a hard time understanding a framework! (but
to
repeat myself, I'm not used
to think in components when it comes to web design, so that's
probably
just me)
Take for example Spring or Hibernate: the latest reference always
comes with the distribution and
the code is documented very well. (and maybe better aligns to my
thinking)
IMHO the wicket code is documented very well.. but you have to get the
basic concept. In this point wicket does not differ from spring or
hibernate. Sure, the wiki documentation could be better, but the best
way to learn wicket is from examples (quickstart is your friend) and
books.
But one thing is important: as a web developer you have to leave
anything behind. Don't try to do things like you did it before with
any
other framework.
I'm starting to realize that this is an important point. My experience
with request/response
frameworks and J2EE in general seems to be a disadvantage with Wicket!
I was really baffled when a guy on the user list mentioned his site he
programmed in
about three month! (and it looked really awesome!) I'm using Wicket
for about four month
and still I'm suprised about how the things work (e.g. static vs. non-
static pages)
I'm still thinking about changing to JSF or back to a simple request
based framework because
I like to have a pure view layer and then leave the whole
transactional stuff to the EJB/JPA layer.
(and I don't use Spring nor Guice, no need for those anymore with J2EE
5...)
Don't care about how wicket manages request/response ... you only
have
to know which methods are called during requests. Use models (if you
don't know why, don't care .. it takes some time to get this).
mm:)
If you don't know, which book: http://www.manning.com/dashorst/
I did read this book! Okay, I didn't read it but used it as a quick
reference, maybe I have to read
more carefully... :-)
thanks for you time!
