On Feb 21, 2007, at 1:43 AM, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
True up to some point. We're all still volunteers meaning that we're
mostly working on this on our free time. Even though at least half of
the team members use Wicket for our daily jobs, most of the work is
done in the evenings and weekends. That is why we don't have client
state saving (like e.g. JSF does). It would be possible to implement
and while it would probably mean 'selling' Wicket easier in some
occasions, we just don't think it is worth our time at this stage, as
none of the core developers thinks this would be a better solution
than keeping server state.
There are advantages to not having to keep session affinity. But there
are advantages to having a statefull programming model as well. It's a
bunch of tradeoffs in the end, and we have to pick our battles.
Eelco
Understood, and this issue certainly wouldn't keep me from using or
recommending Wicket. Nor would it be out of line with other Java web
products that either explicitly or practically require sticky
sessions. I'm caught up in the discussion and didn't mean to blow it
out of proportion.
-Ryan
