The problem with the first approach is that using Wicket would essentially buy you nothing in that case. You couldn't use Wicket's validation. Binding the input fields to models wouldn't buy you anything since the form isn't submitted to Wicket. Also, the form fields would have to be set up manually so that the names all match up with what YouTube expects. So, you'd be pretty much manually putting together the <input> elements in your markup file anyway. Here, I don't see Wicket being a huge benefit to you (other than as perhaps a rendering engine?). You'd be pretty much using static HTML with some JS hackery to do some validation.
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Sven Meier <[email protected]> wrote: > See: > > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Returning-XML-to-JS-tp1873294p1873298.html > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-and-youtube-browser-based-upload-tp3458767p3459719.html > Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
