I haven't program that much on swing, but is it wicket so much like swing.
I think they share the new Component and add(new Component()) etc. But other
than that...
Could it be possible than they share some concept like nested components but
that with HTML not wicket.
I don't see how a mapping or server-side HTML output component would be so
much different. Wicket is brilliant and is much better than swing.
:-)
_>
f(t)
On 5/9/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just curious, when you say developers' skills play a role, do you
> think that either component or action based frameworks are
> considerably harder to program in than the other?
Wicket requires you to understand object oriented programming and have
a decent command of Java. If you have been working with PHP without
much other programming in your career, getting used to Wicket might be
difficult. Otoh, if you are used to server side programming and
desktop UI programming etc, you'll probably find Wicket *easier* than
the action based frameworks, as - hopefully - the programming model
just makes more sense and it will enable you to reuse much of what you
already know about programming.
Eelco
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express
Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take
control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now.
http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user