Hi, I've tried once to provide Netty based impls of WicketFilter, WebRequest, WebResponse, ... and it wasn't hard at all. But the problem is that many of the form components also use directly classes from javax.servlet package, like Cookie for example, or HttpServletRequest (by casting webRequest.getContainerRequest()).
About the performance: I guess you talk about the benchmarks made with https://github.com/jtdev/blogpost_files . The reason why Wicket is slower is mainly because Wicket constructs components for almost everything (label, row, table) while most of the other web frameworks just concatenate those as plain strings. See what is the difference between Wicket's DropDownChoice and Select components. DropDownChoice uses String concatenation to be both faster and lighter than Select which uses a SelectOption component for each <option> you need to render. Select on the other side is more flexible to provide custom markup for each <option> (see http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/compref/wicket/bookmarkable/org.apache.wicket.examples.compref.SelectPage). In summary : 1) you can use Tomcat/Jetty/AnyOtherServletContainer with NIO based connectors to be faster as Netty. 2) create custom component that does its job as good as possible for your needs (faster rendering, more memory efficient, ...) and is still reusable. On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM, Arjun Dhar <dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi, > I've been experimenting with "Play" and Scala. Very agile and theoretically > fast with Netty. > Read some benchmarks that did not show Wicket too well, however from a > development/templating perspective I still cannot rationalize a better > framework than wicket. > > Wickets Session and Request classes do not extend any Servlet Spec; which > gives me the impression there is some thinking in allowing wicket to run in > a container less environment. ..maybe am over thinking. But if not, one for > the Dev team to think and support I guess. > > I'd be really interested to mash things up with Wicket & Play, as few things > about Play are uncomfortable to get around conceptually. Too early to > comment, but I also feel Play's default templating style sucks. > ...And for product development, a component oriented approach does have > benefits, while Play seems to under-play! > > ..Anyone playing with Wicket without a traditional servlet container? > > ----- > Software documentation is like sex: when it is good, it is very, very good; > and when it is bad, it is still better than nothing! > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-in-a-containerless-environment-tp4536820p4536820.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 > -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
