Thank you for your input Scott. I have noticed the same trend in my encounters
with JSF.
-Original Message-
From: Scott Swank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
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
Eelco,
I appreciate your input- very objective answer!
-Original Message-
From: Eelco Hillenius [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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 <[EM
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
I.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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
>
&
rg
Subject: Re: Wicket vs. JSF/Seam (The Dead Debate)
I didnt know Seam was a UI framework...
-Igor
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Our company is in the process of evaluating the feasibility in
> transitioning our UI framework to Wicket. In doing s
I didnt know Seam was a UI framework...
-Igor
On 9/14/07, William Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
