Comments on: Comparison of Java Framworks from a Java Noob

By: Ian Holford

Ian Holford — Sat, 27 Mar 2010 09:07:45 +0000

An excellent post with logical points, We have been a lurker right here for quite a while but wish to become a lot more involved soon.

By: Bryan

Bryan — Thu, 22 May 2008 12:24:37 +0000

Johnathan, thanks for the response. We actually were very close to going with Wicket as the pros seemed to outweigh the cons by far. We ended up going with Struts for the simple reason that we already had some folks in house familiar with it and it was the most similar to our current architecture (Custom Perl MVC with Template Toolkit). Also, this is coming from a couple of guys who aren’t all that familiar with Java and some of what we saw in struts was a *safe* route.

Thanks for your comments and keep up the good work with Wicket.

By: Jonathan Locke

Jonathan Locke — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:14:05 +0000

RE Wicket: I can think of a lot of other pros, but I disagree with some of your cons:

“Uses a very unique design pattern, a huge rethink from standard CGI or servlet coding”

you mean in that we use actual java objects in our design?

“Tutorials and other information is a bit dated, making it hard to learn, especially with the unique design pattern. (This is even more true for Databinder)”

wicket in action is the answer to all this. it is available electronically and soon on dead trees in your local barnes and noble or amazon. see “books” the apache site.

Lots of the HTML can/should/must be generated by code, instead of by hand.

there is practically no html generated by wicket. as a rule, wicket only /manipulates/ markup that YOU define. this means you can take a design from dreamweaver and just add behavior to it. you can also have your designer work on your markup after you’ve added behavior and with a couple small caveats, they can do whatever they want. the ability of coders and designers to do their work without stepping on each other is one of the major pros.