First of all, thank you for entertaining this idea :o) See comments below...
-----Original Message----- From: Johan Compagner [mailto:jcompag...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 9:38 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Wicket at ApacheCon EU'09 in Amsterdam > > From a developers point-of-view standardization can often be a thorn > in our side, but for management it can offer a > vendor-independent/implementation-independent solution. > Maintaining/upgrading infrastructure is difficult, expensive and time > consuming. From the point-of-view of management a standard can often > minimize the risk of vender lock-in. But the examples you gave me have multiply implementations. But wicket doesnt have multiply implementations, what would that mean? That we have IComponent, IRequestCycle, ISession and IApplication and so on? And that IBM would make its own implementation of all the components including the base? And JBoss and X and Y? Answer: They do not have multiple implementations now, but they could potentially have them in the future. It would mean that other communities could follow a standard and mangement could be satisfied that Wicket has the backing of a recognized standard. There is no vendor locking for wicket.. (and all other open source web frameworks by the way) what is the locking? Answer: I agree that other frameworks that have a standard have been disastrous as far as portability between implementations (such as the loosly organized JSF specification), but the locking I'm referring to is in realation to the vendor (Wicket in this case) from a business standpoint. I for one do not have an issue with being tightly coupled to Wicket, but I can see why managment may have an issue with it. A question we need to ask ourselves from a management standpoit is if for whatever reason we had to migrate from Wicket to another framework, what revenue impact would that have on our organization in doing so? If we chose a standards base solution would this minimize the risk due to multiple vendor offerings? And wicket runs pretty much on all simple servlet containers.. Some bugs in some not counting... So give me a concreet example what a standardized wicket would look like. What vendor-independent/implementation-independent solutions there would be then.. Answer: This is a preliminary concept, but the Swing-like architecture for the web could be a starting point? > > Another thing to consider is that a broader multi-community > involvement could also bread innovation. There may be other innovators > from other communities that may have valuable input that could improve > Wicket in ways that may have not been previously considered. IMHO, the > biggest argument for JSR/JCP is that there is often a broader involvement in the process. > Hibernate, for instance, was in a similar position a few years back > when they introduced a new persistence concept. They have since become > heavily involved in the JPA specification process. When I first worked > with Hibernate, like many, I was very impressed (similar to the first > time I worked with Wicket :o), but looking back at how Hiberante > initially did things to how they do them now there are some huge > improvements due to the JPA specification. > > look hibernate is an implementation of a persistence.. And they adapted (and where involved) into the specifications yes Ok now translate that to wicket.. What is wicket an implementation of? a webframework? ahh.. tapestry is also a webframework and struts is also a webframework They all implement the standard webframework spec.. which is the servlet spec.. So JPA Spec == Servlet Spec Hibernate == Wicket TopLink == Tapestry So wicket is already in the JSR/JCP ! we are an enhancement/implementation of the servlet spec :) ok ok. Maybe you say.. sevlet spec implementation == servlet .jar and tomcat ;) not the thing you would build on top of that again But then if you have wicket,tapestry and struts (and x and y) and then you want to define a Web Framework spec that all of them can adapt to what would that then be? What would that then gain? Would that mean that tapestry components/pages could run inside wicket? It is just not as easy to do as with a persistence spec. Which is pretty easy because so many things kind of already work the same way before they where under the same spec.. web frameworks differ quite a bit Answer: Ironically, the same argument that Wicket follows the Servlet specification is the same one I used in some of the dicusssions with my colleagues ;o) I think there is a lot to gain in standardizing a Swing-like architecture such as Wicket. The answer to your question is the same reason why Wicket prides itself as a truly decoupled solution that facilitates a true MVC2 model. As stated previously, it would also gain more corporate acceptance. I think that web framework only differs from other tiers because noone has come to the table with a more viable solution than JSP/JSF in the past. Wicket could really set the precidence here. I understand the reluctance to standardize Wicket. None of us want to lose anything that Wicket is offering to the community. I'm just suggesting a means to broaden Wickets impact in the greater java community :o) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
