All interesting points. Thanks for clarifying. On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 12:01 AM, Toto Laricot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:13 PM, Nick Heudecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > Why did you move away from Seam? > > > It was a project for one of our clients. They let us pick the technology. > We > first selected SEAM because we thought it would be easier for the client > to > take over the code once the app would switch to maintenance mode (JSF is a > standard, wicket is still an obscure framework, yadayadayada...). > We developed the first 75% with SEAM. Everything worked great > (functionally > speaking), the client was happy, but the code was hard to follow (xml > config > files, triggers, etc.), the compile/test cycles were very long, the project > structure was too complex (we use maven: we needed 3 different modules to > produce the final ear file). > So, without telling the customer (and without charging them) we ported the > project to wicket. Huge win: > - Simpler code > - shorter compile/test cycle (with wicket we're launching the app with > embedded jetty during development) > - shorted learning curve: it's easier to bring a developer up to speed on > a wicket project that it is on a jboss/seam one. > - amazing support through the form > > > I'm not saying SEAM is a bad framework. It might even be better than > Wicket, > or better suited for some environments. But one thing is certain: it's a > lot more complex to master. > > >
