so do it with wicket. nothing is stopping you. i know of a few projects that have a working gwt integration, but they are not open source. so its possible, and quiet easily.
-igor On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Sudhir N <sudhir_nima...@yahoo.com> wrote: > One more thing I am still looking for is, integrating GWT. I did that before > with other framework. > > > > > > Sudhir NimavatSenior software engineer. > Quick start global PVT LTD. > Baroda - 390007 > Gujarat, India > > Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being > taught > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: "sudhir543-...@yahoo.com" <sudhir543-...@yahoo.com> > To: users@wicket.apache.org > Sent: Wed, 23 December, 2009 11:57:34 AM > Subject: Re: Wicket feedback > > >> so how does webwork know which properties of your actions should be injected >> from spring and which from the request or session objects? > > - Actions can be configured as spring beans... webwork knows how to get it > from there, developer decides what dependencies should be managed by spring. > - Action is available in valuestack, for example, when form is submitted, > webwork can set properties directly on your action or on your model if it is a > modal driven action. Interceptors does this. > >>it all depends on how your domain model works > Sorry, but I don't get how LDM depends on domain model.. I belive by domain > model you mean, the core 'domain model design' of application. Entities and > relationships ? > >> when you need to put your entity into session because you want to access it >> across requests, or when you put things into conversation scope. this problem > has nothing to do with wicket. LDM is simply one concrete solution for > dealing with these kinds of issues. > > During most of my past project, I was rarely if ever required to put entities > into session, most of the time alternatives worked. > Wicket requires me to put entities into session and so provides LDM. So its > like a solution to its own need. > > I can understand that being a component oriented framework, wicket has lil > different needs, and thts fine most of time. > My point was 'there's some overhead involved when working on integration of > other frameworks'. > > Thanks > SN > > > > > Sudhir NimavatSenior software engineer. > Quick start global PVT LTD. > Baroda - 390007 > Gujarat, India > > Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being > taught > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> > To: users@wicket.apache.org > Sent: Wed, 23 December, 2009 2:13:37 AM > Subject: Re: Wicket feedback > > On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 11:13 AM, <sudhir543-...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> Thanks for clarifying the things, >> >>> show me a framework that makes this easier... >> I think that when I when I was working with Webwork (Struts2 now) I dint >> need to do any thing else other than specifying spring factory in one of >> config file. Neither I was forced to use annotations. > > so how does webwork know which properties of your actions should be > injected from spring and which from the request or session objects? > >> LDMA might have nothing to do with Integration, but from my lil experience, >> I think that When I want to pass my entity as a model to some components >> (which might be serialized as in most cases) It wouldnt work with normal >> models, I will have to manage a separate LDM class for each of that if I >> don't want lazyloading exceptions. > > huh? it all depends on how your domain model works. every application > is different. same applies to other frameworks - eg when you need to > put your entity into session because you want to access it across > requests, or when you put things into conversation scope. this problem > has nothing to do with wicket. LDM is simply one concrete solution for > dealing with these kinds of issues. > > -igor > >> >> >> >> >> >> Sudhir NimavatSenior software engineer. >> Quick start global PVT LTD. >> Baroda - 390007 >> Gujarat, India >> >> Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being >> taught >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >> To: users@wicket.apache.org >> Sent: Wed, 23 December, 2009 12:03:05 AM >> Subject: Re: Wicket feedback >> >> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 10:20 AM, <sudhir543-...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> Yes, from my little experience, I just started learning it [Because I feel >>> it has some thing different to offer] >>> >>>>orly? so what about integrations with hibernate, jdo, jpa, spring, >>> guice, cdi, etc? i guess all those things are a figment of my >>> imagination. >>> >>> As I said it takes comparatively(to some others) more efforts. >>> If I talk about spring, using spring with wicket needs special care, one >>> will have to take care that he > does not serialize entire containers. >> >> that is taken care for you by the framework. all you have to do is >> install the component injector (1 line of code) and use @SpringBean >> annotations in your pages to inject your dependencies. show me a >> framework that makes this easier... >> >>>I haven't tried to use hibernate yet (just playing with inmemories) but I >>>think that I will have to create LoadableDetachable model of most of my >>>entities (plz correct me if I am wrong) >> >> LDMs have nothing to do with integration with other frameworks but how >> you want to manage state. in some cases it makes sense not to use LDMs >> for hibernate entities. >> >> -igor >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sudhir NimavatSenior software engineer. >>> Quick start global PVT LTD. >>> Baroda - 390007 >>> Gujarat, India >>> >>> Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being >>> taught >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> From: Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> >>> To: users@wicket.apache.org >>> Sent: Tue, 22 December, 2009 9:46:45 PM >>> Subject: Re: Wicket feedback >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 6:21 AM, <sudhir543-...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>> >>> lol >>> >>>> Ajax with wicket is easy.. if you do it the wicket way.. But integration >>>> with other engines isnt going to be easy. >>> >>> >>> maybe if you have "little" experience you should not be making such >>> sweeping statements. there are projects in wicketstuff and the >>> internets that integrate wicket with jquery, dojo, prototype, ricoh, >>> mootools, etc. and they do so easily, because wicket makes it easy. >>> >>>> Not only Ajax, from my little wicket experience, I would say wicket works >>>> great in isolation, however integrating it to any other framework would >>>> take (and it takes) comparatively more efforts. >>> >>> orly? so what about integrations with hibernate, jdo, jpa, spring, >>> guice, cdi, etc? i guess all those things are a figment of my >>> imagination. >>> >>> -igor >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sudhir NimavatSenior software engineer. >>>> Quick start global PVT LTD. >>>> Baroda - 390007 >>>> Gujarat, India >>>> >>>> Personally I'm always ready to learn, although I do not always like being >>>> taught >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ________________________________ >>>> From: Ricardo Mayerhofer <ricardo.ekm.lis...@gmail.com> >>>> To: users@wicket.apache.org >>>> Sent: Tue, 22 December, 2009 6:49:02 PM >>>> Subject: Wicket feedback >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> We've just finished with success a wicket project for a large online >>>> retailer. I think wicket is the best framework out there, but as any other >>>> project there is room for improvement. I will talk about some topics >>>> bellow, I hope it can help in some way. >>>> >>>> - Separation of corcerns >>>> I think we could get a better separation of concerns if page class were >>>> focused more in behavior and html were more focused in display (or view). >>>> What I mean is, some times we have components that the main purpose is to >>>> add behavior, and we have to add extra markup just to satisfy wicket 1:1 >>>> mapping. Take CheckGroup for exaple, it is a component focused on >>>> behavior, even though we have to add a reference to it in HTML. >>>> >>>> When creating composite input fields (like date), the usual way is to >>>> create a panel even if you are not interested in reusability. A >>>> interesting aproach is to insert a hidden text field in HTML mapped to a >>>> component that controls other components input. It makes easier to >>>> integrate with designer and to preview in browser. If we didn't have this >>>> limitation the hidden input would not be necessary and the development of >>>> behavior focused components would be easier. >>>> >>>> One thing that bothers me is when our designer move things around in HTML >>>> and we get "added a component in code but forgot to reference it in the >>>> markup" error, because of component hierarchy. Html tags position is a >>>> view problem not a behavior problem, so why bother in java? >>>> >>>> Another issue, is when we want to change the class of a div, for example, >>>> and have to change our whole page hierarchy in java, just to manipulate >>>> that tag. >>>> >>>> So I think a hierarchy more focused on components behavior (for example >>>> taking care of inherited models and inputs), rather than tags position in >>>> HTML would be better. This would make wicket more flexible and easier to >>>> work with. >>>> >>>> - Too many finals modifiers >>>> It's hard for a API or framework designer to foresee all uses and >>>> unxepected situations its users may face in day to day development. Final >>>> modifiers places a additional challenge when facing these situations. In >>>> project were deadlines are in place, there is little room for submiting a >>>> request and waiting for a new version to be released. Furthermore, >>>> unfortunately, it's not possible to mock final methods making it harder >>>> sometimes to test wicket related classes/components. What we had to do >>>> internally, is to have our own version of wicket, mainly to remove final >>>> modifiers when necessary, a clear violation of open/closed principle. >>>> >>>> - Ajax >>>> Wicket offers no stateless ajax and often changes HTML id, which makes >>>> harder to integrate with a 3rd party ajax framework. Is there any hope for >>>> constructor change? >>>> >>>> Please let me know your thoughts, keep up the good work. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >>>> >>>> >>>> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. >>>> http://in.yahoo.com/ >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >>> >>> >>> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. >>> http://in.yahoo.com/ >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >> >> >> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. >> http://in.yahoo.com/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > ________________________________ > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Yahoo! Homepage. > http://in.yahoo.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
