click-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel Ford <daniel.clarke.f...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Comparison with Apache Wicket
Date Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:59:31 GMT
Hi Dennis,

Thank you for your answer!


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 1:06 AM, Dennis M. J. Yerger <
dennisyerger84@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I have experience with both Click and Wicket, and while they are both
> component-based frameworks, they are very different in how they handle
> pages. Click uses Velocity by default for its page templates, while Wicket
> uses HTML with a custom namespace mixed in. I prefer the Velocity approach
> because you get the same results with less typing.
>

I'm not sure that I understand how plain HTML (Wicket) is more typing than
plain HTML + Velocity macros (conditions, loops, etc.)


>
> Click's page classes resemble Swing in how they are constructed: set
> properties, add listeners, and you're ready to go. Wicket classes are
> similar, but you have to override so many methods to get the desired
> result.
>

This is to save memory at the server. A property would be saved (in http
session, disk, ...). An overridden method has no state - just ask it to
return the state/setting.


>
> As far as I know, Wicket pages persist between requests while Click pages
> are constructed for each request. Wicket relies on a Java class rather than
>

Wicket can work as Click - just use stateless components and the page will
be re-created for each request.
As soon as you add the first stateful component or behavior the page will
be stored for later requests.


> an XML document to make settings while Click uses click.xml by default.
> Wicket uses the concept of models for its components much like Swing. Click
> relies less on this concept, making it simpler to work with.
>

I have no much experience with Click and I cannot see how it makes this
simpler.
But yes initially models in Wicket are not so easy to grasp.


>
> So far, the XML-free configuration is the only advantage I like in Wicket.
> Otherwise, I would use Click.
>
> ------------------------------
> From: daniel.clarke.ford@gmail.com
> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 23:40:55 +0300
> Subject: Comparison with Apache Wicket
> To: dev@click.apache.org
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I noticed the mail about stopping development on Click.
>
> Can someone of you compare Click with Apache Wicket<http://wicket.apache.org/>?
> If you have experience with both frameworks I'll be glad to hear what you
> believe Click does better than Wicket and what is better in Wicket.
>
> Thank you in advance!
>
> Daniel
>

Mime
View raw message