Jonathan, can you elaborate? Why do you think jersey is better? Have you any experience of integrating it with wicket?
Thanks! Jonathan Locke wrote: > > > interesting. yeah, igor's right. wicket is not for web services. > > i prefer jersey to restlet and jersey plays fine with wicket. > > > Casper Bang-3 wrote: >> >>> restlet is for building services not uis, that quote makes absolutely no >>> sense. >>> >> >> While I agree the quote smells of FUD, one doesn't necessarily exclude >> the >> other. The beauty of REST is its statelessness, addressability, >> representation negotiation, caching and other ways it embraces HTTP >> rather >> than run away from it (and use overloaded POST's with tiny RPC handlers >> for >> everything). >> >> In Jersey it's also possible to serve (dynamic) HTML through a standard >> templating engine, I'm doing this currently and achieving very high >> scalability while keeping things simple. The caveat with this approach is >> that you are stuck to the classic templating model and components don't >> really exist apart from whatever jQuery/ExtJS stuff you wire up manually. >> >> So probably like the OP, I can't help but wonder about the possebility of >> Wicket running on top as a model-view technology - or perhaps just a >> programming model adopted after Wicket. >> >> /Casper >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-and-%28or%29-restlet-tp22822162p22832756.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
