Oh my God. You started off so nicely, I was caught completely unprepared for the blow :)
Let's get a few things straight, then: I have used Wicket in a couple of small projects in the past, and really really liked it. I read the excellent and highly recommended "Wicket in Action" (I bought it via the MEAP program). I read it cover to cover. I am familiar with Wicket extensions, Wicket-stuff, and Wicket to Spring integration. In fact, had you done what you advocate I should do - which is to take a few minutes and read my posts in this thread - you would have noticed that my point was that I am not familiar with JSF, and was looking for people who have used both and can give me their feedback. Furthermore, you would have learned that I was in fact trying (very hard, I might add) to convince my current management to use Wicket and not JSF as the framework for the next generation of our product (which is, I will risk an estimate, somewhat more than 8 hours of work. More likely a year or two for a team of 3-4 people). I was only trying to gather arguments to support using Wicket in favor of JSF, while making a minimal effort to be objective. I think that as a technologist, and unlike some religious evangelist, I need to at least try to support my opinions with empirical data, instead of just dismissing JSF because it is the work of Satan :) Now, will you please try to calm down, and have a nice day :) Naaman Al Maw wrote: > > 2008/8/7 nlif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> While it is very good to know that it's relatively easy to develop Wicket >> components, bear in mind that management (at least mine) is more easily >> convinced when presented with a wide selection of 3rd party component >> libraries, since that provides an alternative to allocating time and >> resources of our own developers. Thus, for them, the issue is decided >> more >> an economical merits, then on its design/architectural ones. > > Your company should concentrate on what it does as its core competency > as that will bring you the most value for time invested. > > Based on past experience with many companies, I can most glibly and > universally sum this up as: Don't write a ticketing system unless you > sell ticketing systems. > > You are presumably building web apps because you think you're quite > good at it (or perhaps will be), and you're worried about working at > the right level of abstraction to achieve good productivity. > > You're concerned that Wicket might be at too low a level of > abstraction compared to JSF, because JSF has a plentiful array of > off-the-shelf components that you think will let you work at a higher > level of abstraction, and therefore you'll be more productive with it. > It's a nice idea. It certainly looks tempting. Unfortunately, it just > isn't the case. > > Why is that? Go and read Joel Spolsky's article on leaky > abstractions[1]. Right now: > > http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstractions.html > > > > Good to have you back. > > Here are just a few reasons why pre-built components in JSF are not the > answer. > > At some point, normally just after you've completely wedded yourself > to a component, someone important will want you to change something > that on the surface should be trivial. At this point, you will need to > unpick the entire component and figure out how it works, and change > it. This will be hard. You will probably introduce bugs. Unless it's a > component with a lot of distinct regions of complexity, it will > probably be so hard that you may as well have developed the code > yourself from scratch (in either JSF or Wicket). Reading code is > harder than writing it. > > Anything remotely complex will need to you restyle it all to make it > fit in with the rest of your web pages. This will likely be painful > unless the component developer has a clue. > > Nine times out of ten, it will take you so long to find the component > you need, test it works in your environment, make sure it does what > you need, make sure it probably does what you might need, discover it > doesn't, find another component that does, sort out the licensing, > file a purchase order for it, etc. etc. that you could have developed > something in Wicket that did exactly what you wanted in half the time. > > It seems to be the case that if the component is sufficiently complex > that you think you will save time/money by buying it in rather than > building it, it doesn't do what you want. There are only about five or > six truly universal components that are applicable to almost everyone. > These are: tree, tree but in a table, sortable & paginated data-driven > list, date picker, modal pop-up window, AJAX auto-complete drop-down. > I can't think of any others, but there might be a couple. > > Wicket has all of these. Which you'd know if you'd bothered to look at > the examples, which are live and prominently linked from the site. > > Sorry to sound harsh, but how much web development are you going to do? > Hmmm? > Eight hours' worth? Go use PHP or JSP or DHTML or whatever. Your use > case isn't complex enough to be having this discussion. > Eight months' worth? What? You're going to make a decision without > investing a day in each option at least? Are you crazy? > > >> How many Wicket components are there, and how mature are there? Are there >> tables with sorting, filtering, scrolling, paging etc.? Are there >> tree-controls with all the typical tree-functions? Is there Ajax support, >> as >> well automatic fallback for non-javascript browsers (and what about >> comet)? > > Come back here when you have real questions that you can't answer for > yourself in ten minutes. > http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=wicket+tree > http://www.justfuckinggoogleit.com/search.pl?query=wicket+ajax > http://londonwicket.org/content/LondonWicket-ListEditor.pdf > etc. etc. etc. > > Alastair > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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-tp18847208p18912393.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]
