Peter, Actually, when I said I googled a bit and found some material, I was in fact referring to your blog post and the slides :) This is very useful information, and your comparison was done, IMHO, very fairly and skillfully. However, as I said, this is from 2006, and I figured things may have changed. Obviously, Wicket has matured and improved, but for all I know - so did JSF probably.
Are you still up-to-date with JSF nowadays? Would you still hold to the same opinion based on current offering of both frameworks? Thanks, Naaman ptrthomas wrote: > > Hi, > > Here is a list of bullet points I compiled on "JSF when compared with > Wicket": > > – Not really OO components, more of XML tags than Java > – Added complexity of JSF-EL and mixing JSP-EL if applicable > – faces-config.xml : synchronize multiple files for navigation, > page-centric, string expressions not type-safe > – Poor separation of concerns / "preview-ability" (in core JSF spec) > – General consensus that for practical use you have to supplement with > non-standard extensions -e.g. Facelets, Spring WebFlow etc. > – Hard to unit test > – Hard to debug / step-through > – More dependence on tooling / IDE support > – Mixing components from multiple vendors problematic especially with AJAX > – Generated HTML is typically verbose > – Creating custom components is much harder > – Slow evolution as it is a specification, now JSF 2.0 is being discussed… > > I had this as a back-up slide in a presentation recently (which I ended up > having to use because of all the questions :) You can find the > presentation > here if you are interested, it is more to do with comparing Wicket with > action / JSP based frameworks, but may help: > > http://ptrthomas.wordpress.com/2008/05/26/migrating-to-apache-wicket-presentation-slides/ > > Thanks, > > Peter. > > On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 11:44 PM, Igor Vaynberg > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 2:13 AM, nlif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > Prior to posting here, I googled a bit, and found a >> > few forum-threads and blog posts on this topic, but most are from 1-2 >> years >> > ago and in framework years, this may be considered obsolete. >> >> actually, imho, this is one of wicket's biggest advantages over jsf. >> jsf is a standard so it moves very slowly. wicket is a much more agile >> project and moves much faster. >> >> > Also, supposedly JSF has a larger selection of 3rd party components >> compared >> > to Wicket. Is this true? how often do you find yourself rolling your >> own >> > components and how hard is it to do so in Wicket (and I mean >> > non-trivial-good-looking-Ajax-enabled stuff). >> >> actually i find myself creating components all the time, because it is >> so damn easy. trivial and non trivial, because wicket uses composition >> it is not that much harder to create components with complex >> interactions. >> >> sure, jsf has plenty of components out there that offer high level >> things like data grids, etc, but so does wicket. the difference with >> wicket is this: >> >> the other day i created a productlink component for our application. >> it is a simple component that builds an anchor that takes the user to >> the product page. it also adds proper css class based on whether the >> product is for sale or not and whether it is in or out of stock. >> >> so now anytime someone needs to link to a product they simply do >> >> add(new ProductLink("link", product)); and attach it to >> wicket:id="link">whatever . the productlink can be embedded inside >> any other component just as easily and have any other component >> embedded in it as well. >> >> i dont think jsf folks would bother creating anything so fine-grained, >> because although it is very useful there would be too much overhead >> and pain involved. >> >> the problem is that jsf approaches web application development with a >> few roles in mind: the application developer and the component >> developer. the component developer is a smarter person that >> understands the intricacies of jsf. in wicket we do not assume the >> separation of roles, so our programming model is consistent and is >> optimized towards component creation. >> >> my two cents >> >> -igor >> >> >> > >> > Many thanks in advance. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Comparing-JSF-and-Wicket-tp18847208p18847208.html >> > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> > >> > >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Comparing-JSF-and-Wicket-tp18847208p18865081.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
