click-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis M. J. Yerger" <dennisyerge...@hotmail.com>
Subject RE: Comparison with Apache Wicket
Date Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:06:21 GMT
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.  

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. 

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 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.

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 ? 


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