Hi, Correct me if i am wrong but wicket and tapestry are based on different philosophies. Tapestry IOC is the recognition by tapestry that there are certain services that are presentation services and require an exclusive support in the presentation layer. That does not mean that tapestry IOC cannot be used in other layers but the mere inclusion of an IOC into tapestry web-framework broadly speaks of the recognition. Also tapestry's internal design is based on IOC (it avoids inheritance as much as possible.) and that is what tapestry promotes.
Wicket, on the other hand, is more close to swing. It is more about inheritance than ioc. Rather there is no use of IOC in the internals. It is pure and pure inheritance. These is no concept of presentation services, everything is inheritance. The difference between these two frameworks is clearer when one looks into the implementation of jasper report support implementation for the two frameworks. When one embraces a framework, the philosophy comes with it and as a wicket user I don't see any need for Tapestry IOC in my presentation layer and even if there is I have spring & guice. Alternatively as a tapestry user I find little need for inheritance when I have the pleasure of injecting services, environmental etc. Now I am more of a tapestry user but still when i think as a wicket user i find these services as not part of its philosophy.. I hope I have brought some of the wicket user's point of view into picture. regards Taha On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Christian Riedel <cr.ml...@googlemail.com>wrote: > > > > >> Could it help Tapestry to find adoption in the Wicket-world? > > > > I don't think so. Both frameworks have similarities (components and pages > treated as objects), but very different approaches. > > The web-frameworks have different approaches, yes, but Wicket has no own > IOC module. What I see is that a Wicket user has the choice between Spring > and Guice for DI. > > People do mostly evaluate both, Tapestry and Wicket, don't they? So in the > future they could see a third DI provider, which is fortunately part of one > of the frameworks they are just evaluating... > I find that being a psychological advantage to have a Tapestry (IOC) > integration for Wicket (and possibly other frameworks, too). You could read > it as "Tapestry is so advanced you can use it everywhere" or "Development > with Tapestry means to have no need for more web frameworks...". I mean we > have to advertise it a little more :-) It's such a huge advantage to have > that perfectly fitting IOC framework shipped with the web-framework. > > The basic integration was actually very very simple. Much simpler than > Spring's or Guice's. It's just missing @CommitAfter support for hibernate > and better approach of injecting the values into fields - not by reflection. > On the other hand, Spring and Guice are doing the same, so this could become > a unique feature if I find some byte-code-manipulating solution! > > And I also think an integration for play! or other frameworks could be > pretty much the same effort. Tapestry is so easy to use :-) > > Well, I'll continue with that experiment! > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org > >
