Hi Lester, If you think your boss will not accept the benefits, then why not show him the risk of sticking with a technology (Struts) that is in decline? Then suddenly he shoulders the burden of making the desision of taking ownership of a sinking ship.
Regards Bernard On Fri, 08 Jan 2010 08:43:51 +0800, you wrote: >Hi, > >I am facing a hurdle that need crossing in my final attempt to push >Wicket for use in an organization. >I have: > >1) Prototyped a small size module >2) Did 2-3 presentations on the key features and advantages of wicket > >No one is disputing my claims about productivity and good OO code that >was the result. > >BUT, the technology evaluation committee is NOT recommending Wicket >because of..... of all things..... >- Wicket's Low Adoption Rate!!!! >Can I find any numbers to blow this away? > >My alternative is to accept the finding and work with Struts 2. Which >will mean the stack will need to expand to DWR > (for security). I REALLY don't want to go there, and am even >considering not taking part in this project due to the high risk >involved, only 9 months to introduce huge changes to a system that has >lots of legacy problems (took about 3 years to build). I think a lot of >those years were spent wrestling with the monster that is EJB 1.1. The >only way I thought the project can even be on time is to scrap the >entire presentation layer (aka Struts) and redo it in Wicket with 1 >dedicated developer while the rest of the team work on killing the beast >that is EJB 1.1 by refactoring the biz code. > >Sigh, my choices are stark. It's either to keep the job and plough ahead >and probably fail spectacularly 9 months later or go hungry and explain >to my wife why we need to spend less on the kid...... > >It's easy to blame the tech committee but they did help me find wicket >by rejecting my initial proposal to build the new system on a >(JQuery+JSON+REST) framework, which can be very productive as well, if >not as "clean" as Wicket. > >Sorry for rambling so much. Is there any way I can demolish the silly >low adoption rate argument (omg I still don't believe it can be so lame)? > >Lester > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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]
