Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dashorst <at> gmail.com> writes: > > Apple will make (most of) WebObjects open source with the new release > (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0608webobjects.html). > > Has anyone worked with WebObjects and wishes to comment on it compared > to Wicket? > > Martijn >
We can only compare the presentation stack of WO vs Wicket. Having worked with both frameworks, here are some thoughts : - Java code is MUCH cleaner with WO, you keep in code only data pushed in the presentation layer and actions. No need to add components and configure them in java code. - Components are declared in HTML, configured in another file, binding (configuring) the component with the java class. This approach need tools, WO has some nice tools for this. That's why Tapestry is not even close to WO here. - Wicket is statefull. So is WO by default, you can also use it in a stateless way, loosing the convenience of component action but keep the need of a session to the last moment. That's a very good point for WO, which can be used to build public stateless websites. - Wicket has nice URLs (if we want to). WO not really. (keeping an ugly cgi-bin/WebObjects in URLs) - WO is not multithread by default. (When deployed, you can deploy multiple instances of the same app) - WO's validation is done at the data layer and not really good. Wicket's is rather good. - WO is very mature (first version in 1996, yes the first component framework and ORM tool...), has good documentation and is a little...dead (only maintenance versions) - Wicket is young, active but lacks of solid documentation for the moment. - Both frameworks (i'm not talking about EOF here) are rather easy to learn. - Often, you have to do it the WO way... or not doing it. - In WO, you don't need to create custom components if you don't need them elsewhere. In Wicket if you want keep a simple and maintenable code for a rather complex page, you should create Panels, other components... wich are not needed in other pages. - Both frameworks make creation of custom components easy (unlike JSF!!!) - Wicket custom components can be shared with a simple jar, WO components are bundled in "Frameworks" (custom packages). - Both frameworks are not using XML for configuration... etc etc Please correct me if i make false statements about wicket or wo :) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
