3 ms·
Wicket is a single design flaw: -no clean dependency injection possible due to the "page" life cycle -inheritence hell out of the box with coder kiddies think
by rauar 14y ago
Wicket is a single design flaw:
-no clean dependency injection possible due to the "page" life cycle
-inheritence hell out of the box with coder kiddies thinking adding even more subclasses would be "clean" and maintainable
- excessive round-trips required in the build and test cycle
- breaking Maven conventions w.r.t to resources and Java classes which f###'s up Eclipse workspaces
Compare this against Bootstrap and a lightweight server-side implementation which can be learned in a fraction of time compared to Wicket's "different" approach.
great "design"
- rohshall 14y agoWhich light-weight server-side frameworks you would recommend then? apache click? I could not find any which is popular.
- rauar 14y agoRails/Grails/Node ... I'm still using Spring MVC a lot for implementing REST-like APIs (annotated controllers are all I need). These APIs are the foundation for client-side templates (currently I prefer Handlebars) then. Granted... Spring MVC requires a round-trip for API changes as well compared to more dynamic languages but it's quite short due to the compact and focused backend-code base.
- rauar 14y agoBTW: one more thing which I initially did not mention is that Wicket generates a hell lot of client-side code with loads of nested DIVs (per component probably), weird and long wicket IDs which tell you nothing (they are automatically created). Pretty tough to get used to - especially for someone trying to understand what happens "under the hood".
- rohshall 14y agoThank you. I was under the impression that Spring MVC (actually Spring, in general) requires a lot of XML configuration. But, maybe it's the best bet now. I checked out Play 2.0. It's a nice framework, but documentation is sparse, which is a show-stopper for a newbie like me.