Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 7/29/06: >> we do evangelize the OO wherever we can, but it mostly falls on deaf ears. >> have you ever seen a struts app? in most struts apps the notion of a >> class is used mostly as a namespace to group some functions together.
>> its hard to explain something when most people dont understand what >> you are talking about. at least this has been my frustrating >> experience. like that blog from the tapestry guy ( >> http://greggbolinger.blogspot.com/2006/01/i-say-tapestry-you-say-wicke >> t.html and discussion we had here on the list ) saying listview is too >> complex to understand because it has an abstract callback method you >> have to implement and because it is an anoymous class. Wicket is complex, in the same way that Swing is more complex than coding simple HTML form elements. (In fact, many people complain about the complexity of Swing, but that complexity is there for a reason. Unfortunately, simplest possible examples do not motivate the need for the complexity.) I think we need to come up with some reasonable examples that motivate the use of OO in development of presentation logic -- examples in which Wicket elegantly factors out redundancy that would make applications in other frameworks sprawl like the suburbs of Houston. The challenge is to come up with an example which is small enough to fit in a short blog article. What were the compelling examples which convinced people of the need for OO-programming fifteen years ago? How would a Swing text author motivate the need for object-orientation in the presentation logic of a desktop application? We could adapt those examples to the web domain. On 7/29/06 Eelco Hillenius wrote: > Yeah. It seems to be a sad reality that many frameworks have it > as their holy grail to save their users from writing any code. Whereas I prefer the idea of a web framework that saves users from having to write any HTML, CSS or Javascript -- or at least one that at least lets users hide those ugly details, just as a data access object hides the ugly SQL strings. > And many programmers seem to agree that's what they want. Those are the ones we've got to try to put out of business. :-) > That's how you get those famous 'framework coders'. However, I think we're using the word `framework' with a different connotation. The framework programmers described in recent blogs are generally competent programmers who avoided having to learn messy framework API details hidden by architectural code provided by others in the project. In contrast, most web developers revel in the messy web-API details, but don't understand the fundamentals of programming. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
