> I was browsing some of the framework comparisons on the web and realized > that though Wicket is in key ways most similar to Echo. Yet, very little > has been written to contrast these two. The one difference that I can > ascertain is that Wicket exposes the underlying html whereas Echo completely > hides the html from the developer. What are some of the implications of > this difference that would make Wicket better than Echo? > (I dislike html, so that's a point for Echo, but maybe access to the html is > sometimes > necessary – which would be a point for Wicket).
First of all, I don't think we are better; we took different approaches which may or may not suit you. The most striking differences are that Echo 2 is fully based on ajax - which choose to implement ajax additional/ optional - that it works with it's own layout management - while we believe HTML is suited for that, and another abstraction let's you loose flexiblity and makes things less transparent -, and doesn't support the back button and bookmarkable urls. These latter two things seem to be a deliberate choice, and if you see how much work this is to get it right for Wicket, I can image why they made that choice. The best way to learn about these differences is to just build e.g. a simple CRUD application with both frameworks. Eelco ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
