Hi Ashley,
only some points answered, but maybe the answers are helpful.
Ashley Aitken schrieb:
Clone by serialisation? I guess you mean you serialise and then
un/de-serialise. So you don't serialise to save to disk?
Java has no deep-copy mechanism. Serialization can be used as a workaround.
I don't think
the back button can be equivalent to an "undo" type operation?
It actually is with Wicket.
Of course you have to decide when you commit data. For example you can't
undo a sent E-Mail.
i think you misunderstand what the model is. the model is the
databinding. it allows the component to retrieve and store data in an
abstract way.
Sorry if I am not getting this. I thought a model could be a simple
String, or a more complex object (or small object graph) like
Customer. I thought most components were associated with a model, i.e.
the object(s) that they are representing in some way in their view.
A databinding, for me at least, would be a mapping between parts of the
view and parts of the model but *not* the model itself, an associative
map of some kind. That said, I think I know what you mean and there is
no need to argue over definition.
The terminology of Wicket is a bit imprecise. IModel is the glue. Model
objects (IModel#getObject()) are the model.
the extra work with models gives you the backbutton support, something
that almost no other framework that stores state in session does.
As above, personally speaking, I am not sure this is a high priority
feature for Web 2.0 applications. But, of course, these are only one
type of Web applications, and perhaps not a focus of Wicket.
It is a high priority feature of stateful web frameworks. Without that,
the back button would behave unexpectedly.
well, wicket is perfect for the heavily stateful applications imho. i
think the best way to learn would be to write a small application in
the prod like environment. see where the challenges are, and we will
try to help you along the way.
prod = productivity?
Production environment. Solving real problems instead of theoretical ones.
Thanks for the offer and I may just be doing that.
To be honest though, I am still tossing up between Wicket and Echo2 (or
even something more standard).
Echo2 is, to me at least, very Web 2.0 focussed.
Quite frankly, Echo sucks.
I evaluated it (and many other frameworks) halve a year ago, and it took
me some time to find a browser that would work with Echo (the demo apps
were still terribly buggy).
I think Browsers are not ready for client-side applications. Server side
state in combination with very little AJAX here and there is much more
reliable, easier to build and more useful.
David H. Hansson (the RoR guy) wrote a nice article about how AJAX can
be used in a sane way: http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000428.html
Neither Web 2.0 nor AJAX mean that you need a lot of Javascript. Web 2.0
isn't really about technologies, but more about business models:
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html
I'm way off topic now, so I will end here.
Only speaking for myself, but I think this is on topic.
Timo
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
