If only html dom was more flexible :) ** Martin
2009/1/16 Tobias Marx <[email protected]>: > I think everyone should be allowed to use the tools they want to use......and > I think > people should do what they are supposed to be doing. > > Webdesigners/HTMLers should work on the templates and design and programmers > on Java code. > > Webdesigners should work with the tools they know and are familiar with.... > > I don't want programmers to Slice HTML and I don't want designers to compile > Java code..... > > But if design changes make it necessary to touch the Java code there is an > error by design.... > > > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> Datum: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:53:05 +0200 >> Von: Martin Makundi <[email protected]> >> An: [email protected] >> Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket > >> All you need is a RAD IDE that co-operates well with the typesafe wicket. >> >> ** >> Martin >> >> 2009/1/16 Tobias Marx <[email protected]>: >> > I think there already a lot of projects out there that try to optimize >> web-development in Java. >> > Instead of starting yet another project I think it would be better to >> find out which framework is most >> > flexible and has the best design architecture and philosophy and support >> this project. >> > >> > So far I have looked at Tapestry5 and Wicket. >> > >> > What I don't like about Tapestry is, that it is currently not possible >> to write web applications that allow you to "create webapplications", >> meaning that you can not read the "configuration" of a form from the >> database and >> create all kinds of components dynamically. For example I wanted to >> implement an Admin page in which you can define custom fields (for a >> configurable >> community website)...but this is not what Tapestry5 was designed for. >> > >> > What I don't like about Wicket is, that it is like writing normal Java >> applications - although rich clients applications are being replaced with >> web-based solutions and there is a fundamental difference between >> web-applications and normal java applications. If you have a java >> application as a >> product, it is normal to employ software developers that work on bug fixes >> and >> new features all the time - they constantly develop and it is >> expensive....everything has to be done by a software developer. >> > >> > An ideal web-application is developed once and the Java code is never >> touched again for 3-5 years until there are a lot of new features >> necessary.... but in this time there could be several small changes or >> complete >> re-designs...and in that time this should be a pure matter of HTMLing >> without the >> need of touching the Java code. If a new input field is added or some new >> strings.....or whatever....or maybe a new Flash component etc....this >> should still work without changing the -war file that carries the Java >> code...only changes in the templates or the database should be made. >> > >> > Wicket does does not really allow this. Or assume you have a >> web-application you want to sell - and don't want the customer to know >> Java....they >> would be really restricted in the changes that are possible. Another >> advantage of Wicket is that it creates a session for every visitor - no >> matter >> whether it is a crawler/search engine that does not need a session or a >> logged >> in user.... >> > >> > If there was a coding competition to write a web-application with as few >> lines of code as possibleI think Tapestry5 would win over Wicket. But with >> some changes in Wicket and some aspects of Tapestry5, this would be a lot >> better. >> > >> > What about merging Wicket and Tapestry? Similiar to Wicket with Tapestry >> templates----? >> > >> > So far most of my projects are still good old PHP code....stupid but >> efficient. It loads fast when you use file or memory based caching, you can >> always resolve any kind of bug within minutes and you never end up debugging >> for 5 days until you find out that it is not possible without any >> fundamental changes in the core of some Java framework you do not wish to >> know in >> detail...... >> > >> > So long... >> > >> > Toby >> > >> > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- >> >> Datum: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 21:46:08 -0500 >> >> Von: Trevor Burnham <[email protected]> >> >> An: Tobias Marx <[email protected]> >> >> Betreff: Re: Things I miss in Wicket >> > >> >> Hi Toby, >> >> >> >> I've been considering creating a new project that would split away >> >> from Wicket, refine it and streamline it for similar reasons, >> >> particularly to reduce the number of lines of code that are needed for >> >> common use cases, to make things easier on designers, and to provide >> >> more seamless interoperability with other popular libraries (e.g. >> >> Spring). Do you think you might contribute to such a project? For now, >> >> I'm just testing to see if there's interest. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Trevor >> >> >> >> On Jan 15, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Tobias Marx wrote: >> >> >> >> > Hi there! >> >> > >> >> > There are some things in Wicket I am missing and I think they could >> >> > improve the framework a lot..... >> >> > >> >> > But just some small background first: >> >> > >> >> > In my opinion the most important things in a web application are: >> >> > >> >> > - as few lines of code as possible, as many as really necessary >> >> > >> >> > - separation of design and web application code and logic >> >> > >> >> > - if a webapplication changes in the design or some small items are >> >> > added this should be possible without needing a java developer.... >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Therefore I would like to suggest more intelligent templates in >> >> > Wicket: >> >> > >> >> > 1. Pass parameters inside of wicket components eg: >> >> > >> >> > <div wicket:id="myComponent" paramA="blabla" paramB="blabla2"></div> >> >> > >> >> > and make them accessible in the Java code. >> >> > >> >> > This is a way to customize and reuse components purely by editing >> >> > templates >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > 2. Make Strings/Labels accessible directly in templates....to avoid >> >> > redundant code like this: >> >> > >> >> > add(new Label("indexTitle", .....) and instead allow to add >> >> > properties directly. >> >> > >> >> > 3. Pick up components automatically without needing to add them in >> >> > the Java code: >> >> > >> >> > add(new LastPostsPanel("lastPostsPanel")); >> >> > add(new NewsPanel("newsPanel")); >> >> > >> >> > This could be matched automatically >> >> > >> >> > I think Wicket could be better without so much redundant copy&paste >> >> > code...by improving templates.... >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for listening... >> >> > >> >> > Toby >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> > 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] >> > >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
