I have a similar story. In a commercial environment, we are using T3 very heavily. We have benefitted tremendously from a component library that we have added to over time. We have built a number of very similar applications and so the component library has proven to be a great advantage.
However... T3, is essentially an abandoned framework. In the commercial setting, we are struggling with how to proceed with a greenfield project. We are a bit loathe to use our T3 for that, despite our large component library because it is, like Latin, a 'dead' framework. T5 isn't ready, so that's out. I've been using Wicket (1.3 from SVN) on a side venture. I thought that I would pick it up very quickly based on my experience in approaching web apps using an event-driven component model. I found that I struggled a bit. There are some very compelling features in Wicket and I have been enjoying those tremendously. But I have spent too long trying to figure out the "right" way to do some things in Wicket at times. This, perhaps, could just be me. This brings me to my next point. Based on our experience with Tapestry, my current thinking is that UIs are essentially disposable anyway. View technologies change so fast that a hot framework one day (Struts), is scorned the next. If you have developed your application with good separation of concerns, it should be a lot easier to replace the UI technology. I like that Wicket has made a commitment to backwards compatibility. This, however, can be a double-edged sword but that's another topic. The idea here is that you want to pick something that will have staying power, but at the same time prevent lock in. I feel like I'm rambling a bit now so I'll just put in a couple thoughts about Wicket: 1) Overall I really like it. The API is quite large tho and it can be difficult to understand the intent of the design at times. I hope the Wicket in Action book will help with that. 2) I like the back button support. My thinking is that extending Wicket's AJAX integration to also support the back button (somehow) is a must. Virtually everyone who uses Wicket will use it's AJAX functionality. Almost all of these will need solve this problem. Sure would be nice if it was included. 3) The design-by-inheritance model (WebPage, AbstractBehavior, etc). has produced a somewhat fragmented library. Reminds me of the days of MFC. T5's approach in this respect seems quite attractive. Thanks for listening, Erik On 8/22/07, Konstantin Ignatyev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My story: > > I have been very satisfied Tapestry 3 used and T3 has > helped tremendously with building applications in the > past. > > Then I was busy doing other things although keeping > eye on T and recently I needed to build a live > prototype quickly, naturally my first reaction was to > pick up Dreamweaver and try Tapestry 5. > > T5 is amazingly good BUT I needed Ajax support and at > this moment Wicket makes leaps and bounds around T5 in > this area. > > So I abandoned T5 and started using Wicket - so far I > am very satisfied with it although worry if Wicket is > production grade for high traffic sites because of its > heavy use of HttpSession as storage. > > So for now I will use Wicket for prototyping and small > apps and keep my eye on T5. T4 is no-go for me - I am > too lazy > > --- Chris Chiappone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > A colleague of mine and I had a discussion about > > this because he was > > sorting through new frameworks to use for a new > > project. I have been > > using Tapestry since v3 and wanted him to give it a > > try. Unfotunately > > he ended up picking Wicket because of the fear that > > Tapestry has > > issues with backward compatibility. I am now > > wondering if I made the > > right choice in choosing tapestry for my > > applications. He built his > > application quickly and it is impressive using > > Wickets built in AJAX > > components. Upgrading in Tapestry has been a pain > > going from 3 - 4 > > and obviously 5 isn't even possible. I wish I could > > have choose tap 5 > > for my latest project but it was too beta and > > doesn't play well with > > other frameworks, ie a large legacy app with a > > Struts like framework. > > > > Anyway its a hard decision, they both have plus' and > > minus' > > > > ~chris > > > > On 8/22/07, John <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Alex, > > > > > > > > > > > > I would say Tapestry 5 wins the challenge unless > > you plane to use T4. > > > > > > Tapestry 5 uses annotations, and this is a very > > important advanced feature > > > in Java. You don't need to extend WOComponent, > > WebPage or what ever. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think all frameworks will use the annotations in > > the future; the question > > > is when is available. > > > > > > T5 does and it's ready. > > > > > > > > > > > > In other words, the real question you should ask > > "Do I want to use > > > annotations or classical framework?" > > > > > > > > > > > > Try T5 a little, and you will fast mention the > > power of annotations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Signature IT-Consult Armainak Sarkis > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Alex Shneyderman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: <users@tapestry.apache.org>; > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2007 10:13 AM > > > Subject: wicket vs tapestry ? > > > > > > > > > >I just started to look for a component based > > framework. I came across > > > > both tapestry and wicket (and it would be hard > > not to as you guys > > > > share the same host) but I kind of fail to see > > what the differences > > > > are? > > > > > > > > From my limited experiments with both, wicket > > and tapestry seem to be > > > > quite similar. So, I wonder if there is anything > > I am not seeing? > > > > Anyone has a comparisson map of wicket vs > > tapestry? > > > > > > > > Alex. > > > > > > > > PS: I like both frameworks for their lightness I > > just feel that I will > > > > need to stick with one to be pragmatic :-( > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > ~chris > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > Konstantin Ignatyev > > > > > PS: If this is a typical day on planet earth, humans will add fifteen > million tons of carbon to the atmosphere, destroy 115 square miles of > tropical rainforest, create seventy-two miles of desert, eliminate between > forty to one hundred species, erode seventy-one million tons of topsoil, add > 2,700 tons of CFCs to the stratosphere, and increase their population by > 263,000 > > Bowers, C.A. The Culture of Denial: Why the Environmental Movement Needs > a Strategy for Reforming Universities and Public Schools. New York: State > University of New York Press, 1997: (4) (5) (p.206) > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
