-Igor
On 3/29/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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?cmdlnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
