Hi!
Today I have learned about a huge misconception I have had about wicket 1.4.
I have actually been thinking that it is an MVC framework.
But it is practically not. Why? Wicket's request cycle and
serialization process makes effortless MVC design almost impossible.
It seems like wicket is
Hi Martin,
I have actually been thinking that [Wicket] is an MVC framework.
Looking at all the other MVC web frameworks I'm glad it isn't.
What issues are you trying to solve actually?
Sven
Am 14.12.2011 09:12, schrieb Martin Makundi:
Hi!
Today I have learned about a huge misconception I
Hi!
I have actually been thinking that [Wicket] is an MVC framework.
Looking at all the other MVC web frameworks I'm glad it isn't.
What issues are you trying to solve actually?
That's a long story. We have complex business logic in complex
multidimensional forms... yeah, don't try handling
Hi Martin,
trying to give you a qualified opinion on your post...
Am 14.12.2011 um 09:12 schrieb Martin Makundi:
Hi!
Today I have learned about a huge misconception I have had about wicket 1.4.
I have actually been thinking that it is an MVC framework.
But it is practically not. Why?
Hi!
Wicket (View) - Facade - (Model, Controller)
Wicket (View) - Controller - Facade (using interface IModel) + direct
model access - Model (Data)
No. If contorller is touched by Wicket, it spoils the state. I know
your proposal works in simple situations, but when you have lots of
players,
a simpler approach:
https://www.42lines.net/2011/12/01/simplifying-non-trivial-user-workflows-with-conversations/
-igor
On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Martin Makundi
martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote:
Hi!
Today I have learned about a huge misconception I have had about wicket 1.4.
a simpler approach:
https://www.42lines.net/2011/12/01/simplifying-non-trivial-user-workflows-with-conversations/
Maybe yeah, but in our situation our model/controller complexity is
almost like a relational db, so it will reside completely in its own
layer facaded by entitymanager. Yeah,
