Karthik - Sorry if my post came across the wrong way -- I just think it's a good illustration of the kind of healthy cross-pollination I had been referring to earlier. I'm not implying that they can't or won't implement this sort of component, nor am I saying that something like this fits every project. I'm just pointing out a visible example of the "free intellectual market" at work. In fact, I'm eager to see how they improve on the concept, so that I can steal their ideas! ;-)
Take care, Daniel On 12/21/06, karthik G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Both frameworks have excellent developers (which is great for users) and from what I see both have a different approach to a problem. I think everything can co-exist! > Case in point ;-) > http://www.nabble.com/Directly-map-a-bean-to-HTML-form-tf2845102.html#a7944709 < http://www.nabble.com/Directly-map-a-bean-to-HTML-form-tf2845102.html#a7944709 > Yes a built-in beanform doesn't seem to exist in Wicket now but that doesn't mean that it can't be done. Wicket has Panel components that can just about wrap any component. So you just need a TextFieldPanel that wraps a TextField for e.g. You can have similar such Panels for a checkbox, drop down etc. But at the end of the day they can all be treated as panels that need to be rendered in a loop?. Then its just about having a Wicket Repeater component that renders any of these panels depending upon the bean property. So a minimalistic generic template could look like this - <span wicket:id="fields"> <span wicket:id="fieldLabel">Label goes here</span> <span wicket:id="fieldComponent">Field Component</span> </span> IMHO the importance of beanform kind of component depends on the project you are working on. Our client has tied up with another company to design UI templates. We assemble the rest of the application. So in our case, the beanform is not of much help. Please do note that I'm not trying to trivialize the component implementation. But its important to realize that the dynamic forms are supported within Wicket constructs as well. Regards, Karthik On 12/21/06, D&J Gredler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Case in point ;-) > > http://www.nabble.com/Directly-map-a-bean-to-HTML-form-tf2845102.html#a7944709 > > > > On 12/20/06, D&J Gredler < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Emmanuel - > > > > I tend to view this as a free intellectual market at work. There were > > inadequacies in Tapestry and strengths in Wicket that drove this one > user to > > choose Wicket over Tapestry (and the other frameworks). If enough people > > agree with him, either Tapestry addresses these issues and becomes a > better > > framework, or users migrate to Wicket (or some other framework du jour). > > > Either way, we developers end up with a better framework. Given the > amount > > of work that has already been invested in Tapestry and the community > that > > has been built around it, I think the first option is much more likely, > but > > then I'm no oracle :-) > > > > Daniel > > > > > > On 12/20/06, Emmanuel Sowah < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Guys, > > > > > > I came across this article > > > http://www.infoq.com/news/2006/12/wicket-vs-springmvc-and-jsf and > > > thought > > > probably someone here could comment. Is Tapestry really losing the > > > battle > > > against Wicket? > > > > > > Emmanuel > > > > > > > > > >
