heikki wrote: > > - and in my opinion the stuff you need to do to achieve "normal" URLs (no > ?, no version number, no nothing) is just a pain. *Every* URL, for > stateless or stateless pages or whatever, should be "normal", otherwise it > is just not acceptable -- users never want to see those > complicated-looking URLs under any circumstance > >
Here I totally agree. I think there are very few developers who understand this. An URL is a technical entity, and, if they had a choice, the vast majority of internet-users could very well do without it. URL's are /not/ user friendly. It's better now, but in the early days it was very cumbersome to help my >80 father (y'all understand >80, I presume) on the phone: 'No, dad, just type h-t-t-p-:-/-/.....'. I really think this is a flaw in wicket, caused by a collective blank spot of it's otherwise very clever developers. But I really love Wicket, I managed to develop a quite complex application that's robust and easy to use, and it's only my second web application ever, the first being a Servlet with html-spawning only... -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Apache-Wicket-is-a-Flawed-Framework-tp4080411p4083524.html Sent from the Users forum 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
