Enjoying Web Development with Wicket 3rd edition
I have developed the Blogs application using the power of the object orientation. In this application, there is no specific view code or some, but only for determining the context. It is based on generic components that have more knowledge of the domain model than Wicket predefined components. However, developing those generic components from the Wicket components was not difficult at all. And that is the power of Wicket.
If you are interesetd, a zip file is ready to be sent. This was the winning ticket for me. The framework is truly amazing. I think there should be a default behaviour, where I can register an object with a page and all properties of that object are accessible in the HTML. Suppose you have lots of different pages, many of which have a section that displays complex data in a complex but similar way. If you achieve this display by nesting standard tags you have to repeat this complex nesting of standard tags in each of those pages.
With JSP, you have to do a lot of work to connect your display logic with your model data; this was one of the motivations for the complex Struts framework. A component-oriented framework such as ASP. NET or JSF makes it easier to populate your display components with data and process updates, but the cost is even greater difficulty in creating, configuring and re-using your own custom display components.
So instead of creating custom components you stick with the standard components and repeat the same nesting and configuration of them on page after page. Great article with only one minor annoyance… I enjoyed the foreplay but where is the consummation? After reading this article I wanted to see the final webapp running without having to download the src.
Any chance of putting a working example up somewhere? And really the only way to have default renderers is if Wicket also integrates layout managers. Take a look at qooxdoo. Based on what I have seen so far, Wicket appears to be the second best web framework. The best and the simplest framework has to be ZK www. Tapestry is probably third on the list. You can use Groovy code instead of Java to define the Wicket classes. And seconds after my question about a link to the source, I saw the it… So please remove my comments…. I was searching for all of these framework on internet but i got it from only one place i.
Pingback: Migrating wicket-example to Wicket 1. Sections About. Posted on March 8, by Guillermo Castro 33 Comments. So, what is Wicket? This is the description from the main site: Wicket is a Java web application framework that takes simplicity, separation of concerns and ease of development to a whole new level. This is what BlogApplication looks like: package org. Application; import wicket.treefunmenguilea.gq/magic-the-gathering/argument-of-john-n-latrobe.pdf
ISBN 13: 9781329496040
ApplicationSettings; import wicket. WebApplication; import domain. Home Page Any Wicket page component needs to extend WebPage , so all of our pages will be a subclass. BasePage is a very basic class that adds common components to the page: package org. The code for Index is: package org. DateFormat; import java. List; import wicket. Blog detail Page This page is actually very simple, with one exception. DateFormat; import wicket. This is the code for the PageNotFound class, and basically it just sets the response status to package org. I just created a web application using Wicket.
Summary Wicket, in my opinion, focuses the development efforts in the right place, inside plain Java code, and leaves the graphical presentation where it should be, inside html. Share this:. Share on Tumblr. Like this: Like Loading Very nice atricle, indeed. Just one think, the irc channel is wicket, not wicket. So, why do you think creating web applications in Java take forever? It means that both hands can work in parallel Loading Shocking simplicity. If your argument is that sphagetti code is a bigger risk with Wicket, I disagree, along with commenter 1.
I have worked with a large project team using Seam and I recently posted some of my observations here:. Another problem is the potential for abusing the session which is a noted concern by critics of Wicket. While the current version of Wicket 1. However, one problem is the incompatibility between applications using Wicket 1. On this basis, you would need to think hard on whether to start with the current stable release even if it is incompatible with the next version which is currently only a release candidate. Wicket 1.
You can optionally start making use of generified models of course. You also should have mentioned that Seam 3 is on the horizon, which has to conform to 2 very new specifications a JSF 2 and b WebBeans. Sounds like a lot of changes from Seam 2 to me. Wicket does lack some of the functionality and flexibility of Seam and SWF.
Seam offers JSF based email and pdf and excel documents from JSF documents by using the already defined data components letting you do more with what you have already built. On the surface, this does indeed appear to be a Good Thing. The page navigation article describes my stance on Wicket pretty well. With Seam and SWF, this is out of the box at the expense of flexibility. This is mainly why I think of Wicket as Assembler ,. When you start adding those features in Wicket, you will no doubt start accruing session issues.
I found we have very little spaghetti code with Seam, we mostly use the entity and entity query beans from the Seam framework. Our actual code was quite minimal, just a few ajax event handlers etc. In the Stack Overflow article, most of those disadvantages relate to the fact that Seam can be troublesome if you are not using the technologies it was designed for.
I started looking at upgrading to Wicket 1. New projects with generic Wicket should be a delight. Seam 3 will be interesting since it will be backed by Web Beans and I think upgrading Wicket will be much easier than a Seam upgrade. On the topic of the Pdf, Excel plugins etc.. I mostly disagree there. I think Wicket is more my level in terms of being able to build a custom mini framework on top of Wicket. This is also why I think of it as assembly language which I also enjoy using.
Clay lets you build any shape, Lego only lets you build rectangular angled shapes. FWIW, Mojarra 1. Ryan Lubke, with the testing help of some of our users, did the leg work to get that working. IMO the key strength of Wicket is that it specifically does not aim to provide you a bunch of complex components that you can use out of the box. The problem with such things is that they never quite do what you want. Instead it provides you with extremely powerful abstractions and building blocks for you to craft reusable components yourself. If you want a powerful abstraction that leaks remarkably little that lets you easily build truly reusable components across your company, Wicket is for you.
If that is not enough, then look through 42k topics in the mailing list or search through nearly 12k grails-tagged questions on SO. Big and passionate community. How about a book that you can use to swat an elephant! The Book of Vaadin is a must have reference manual for all your queries. It does cost to buy the book online, but you can download the PDF for free, or pick up the book at one of the many conferences the Vaadin folks sponsor.
Online, there is also a bunch of documentation, including tutorials and demo videos, which are extremely easy to learn from and replicate. The community is strong with an active forum, blog, webinars, conference appearances and of course the community contributions on the Vaadin directory.
Video tutorials and demos are also impressive. Vibrant community. GWT has surprisingly extensive official documentation. The majority of the new beta GWT project website is tutorials and framework documentation detailing everything from coding basics to using complex UI widgets and handlers. The site also has sections for books dating back to written about GWT itself and paired with other frameworks namely Vaadin , case study videos, sample projects, and presentations given at various conferences.
Both the sample projects and presentations are available for download from the website. Google also established a set of discussion groups and mailing lists that help users obtain support for technical issues and allow them to share their latest accomplishments and projects with the GWT developer community. Wicket has reasonable documentation and a somewhat active community. On the site there is a Wiki, Reference Library, and a list of books about Wicket.
The resources are useful … and a little bit old. The community is as active as they need to be, if not as extensive as other framework communities. The website lists regular Wicket bloggers with links to their websites — the owners seem to post every couple months about a variety of topics, but the list seems to be a little out of date with only a third of the listed bloggers having updated in the past three months.
There is a more extensive list of bloggers on the Wiki. Beyond the blogs, Wicket set up an IRC for more direct support, there are a few dozen companies that provide commercial support, and there are a splattering of community meetups worldwide. Play has a reasonably sized community with great documentation and the support of TypeSafe. The community as a grass roots component as well with lots of great tutorials on the web, there are even some great and freely available screencasts introducing Play.
The Play framework site has full reference level documentation available free of charge and even covers secondary documentation that covers the non-framework pieces of Play, like Akka and SBT. The community is very active and there are several companies that base their main sites and applications on the Play framework. One of these companies is LinkedIn, and they independently publish documentation for the Play framework community. Bugs reports and feature requests are solicited from the community on a regular basis, which leads Play to have a robust and active community.
There are some guides, tutorials and cookbooks both on the official site and 3rd-party websites. But the amount of dead links e. User-written tutorials are slightly better. JSF is unlike any other framework in our report for one main reason: it is fully supported and has a reference implementation from Oracle. Unlike the other frameworks in our report, JSF has a top down community with Oracle at the head paying employees to write documentation and create samples and examples.
A simple search for JSF 2 tutorial on your search engine of choice will get you some great links, also youtube and other video sites have decent content. Requiring Netbeans and Glassfish is definitely a detriment to the documentation and tutorials. This section includes what you now need to deploy into your runtime to run your web application, how it would perform under the pressure of heavy load and multiple users, as well as how it looks and how rich the UX experience is.
Very often, an large ecosystem can mean increased complexity, but not always. This section also depends heavily on user needs, which we will discuss further in the next report.
- PKL 2018: Star Sports launches campaign for Pro Kabaddi League season 6.
- Stepping Stones Book 1;
- The History Of Money and Banking No One Ever Told You - Economic History Report - Revised Edition!.
- Spatial Analysis and Modeling in Geographical Transformation Process: GIS-based Applications: 100 (GeoJournal Library).
- Why The Hell Would I Use Node.js? A Case-by-Case Tutorial.
- Womyms World, El Mundo de Womym, Le Monde de Womym.
Grails is a full-stack web framework, not just MVC. No problem, you can integrate with Maven or Ant. You want to add caching or security capabilities? There is a plugin for that! But does allow for it within the Vaadin Directory. There is integration advice and documentation around how you can integrate with Spring, Flex, Liferay, Maven, but not much else.
Play, unlike many Java web frameworks, includes a binary that is used for scaffolding of your applications. The Play framework is an all-encompassing ecosystem solely developed to increase developer productivity while minimizing the dumbing down of capabilities or shortening of feature lists. You may choose from a variety of template engines, build tools, ORM implementations, dependency injection frameworks.
If there is no plugin, then most likely there is a user-written tutorial out there somewhere. The real value however is being part of the Java EE specification. That includes great IDE support and a lot of functionality built into the application servers. What you choose in development will need to be supported in production. This category takes a look at what each framework has to offer to help you application when there are more users and requests than lines of code!
Spring applications are meant to scale as Spring is used in large-scale applications worldwide. It contains necessary components for parallel processing and solutions like EhCache can be attached easily to scale memory. Spring Batch enables to build multi-threaded apps, partition applications and do bulk processing. Spring apps can be modularized and different modules can be set up on different hosts. Grails is an abstraction over Spring and Hibernate.
Wicket comes up a little short on the scalability front. Because it is a server-side framework, building the resulting page to be rendered to the user is done on the server and will thus consume server resources. It may not be the best option for applications where throughput is a top priority.
However, it does have great AJAX support so Wicket could be used to render the initial page skeleton and have the rest of the communication with the server done via AJAX requests. Just make sure you configure your components to use AJAX if possible. Play is incredibly scalable with high throughput.
When coupled with the native integration for Akka actors, Play enables ridiculously performant asynchronous applications ready your Big Data needs. The notion of Future really enables Play to deliver on the promise of high concurrency and large datasets. Built in JSON support assists with integrating into other web services, enabling your code to be more modularized. Even Netty is non-blocking, which should cut down on useless waiting. It does require learning how to use Akka. Similarly to Wicket, Struts is a fully server-side framework.
If you need more power for rendering the pages, then adding more servers to your cluster should be the answer. JSF applications can be performant, but really the performance gains come from clustering Java EE application servers. JSF itself does not provide explicit support for asynchronous calls, and relies on the Java EE specification to provide Asynchronous and Schedule annotations on the business logic EJBs.
Releasing you first version of code is the start of a wonderful journey of support, migration and new features. But how wonderful will that journey actually be? Will you be in a state where each project, using the same framework is configured differently? Planning for the future saves regretting for the past. But still, annotations enable to access all kinds of data in a declarative manner and this way, not much hacking is needed.
They make life so much easier. Multiple ways to configure. Server side logic is easy to maintain but if comes to managing layouts and complex UI-s, it will be hard. Just like the Play framework, Grails follows the convention-over-configuration principle, which makes maintenance easier. It enforces the project structure, thus most Grails projects look very similar.
Groovy is less verbose than Java, thus less code need to be written. Hot code reloading makes the updates even more fast.
The automatic code generation through the Design mode is relatively organized and manageable as well. Maintaining and updating code written for the Wicket framework is manageable and further helped by its execution of the convention over configuration methodology. The user components are based on inheritance and so are easy to debug, and the separation of style and logic means you can reuse a lot of your code and easily change the look of your web application without worrying about breaking the logic.
HTML templates are easy to modify and errors come out early and clearly. No additional configuration files to deal with. Code written for the Play framework is readable, as the framework follows a convention over configuration methodology that makes most Play framework projects look very similar in structure. This enables a developer to switch between applications without having to relearn the ecosystem for every project. The built in templating system also helps with the readability of code and can help create incredibly powerful and useful applications with lower Lines of Code counts.
Play also has reloading of components and code built in which definitely helps cut down on time during the development phase of your applications. Similarly to Spring MVC, maintenance should not be a big problem if you are familiar with Struts, but if you are new to the project, the learning curve can be steep. Even if you have experience with Struts, your new project may have a bit different structure and different configuration. Two Struts projects can also look pretty different. JSF projects leverage existing design paradigms such as Model-View-Controller to help enforce maintainability and readability.
The framework itself does not have any features that particularly impact readability or maintainability. One of the stated goals of JSF is to help developers produce better code, but we do not see how they facilitate that. One of the most important features! What does the end user see, what is their experience of the application and UI? The scores in this section also reflect how hard it is to create the UI with each framework. No matter, you can still use it to write a solid backend and use another framework intended for building your UI.
But templates are easy to manage and create. Do you need something complicated in the UI? The auto-generated project skeleton has some basic view templates and CSS to start with. Vaadin themes are collections of layouts for components, custom images and CSS, The whole idea to have different themes is to separate the logic of components from their look and feel and being able to switch themes without changing the logic.
A theme follows a specific directory layout , and with them you can specify the css for the default Vaadin components or create custom components. This means you can inherit from a theme and just add the missing pieces. Its themes are a joy to use, and the results are very slick and pleasing to the eye. GWT is very versatile when it comes to customizing and awesome-izing the look of your web apps. GWT allows you to associate style sheets with your project in order to further customize it. The GWT theme style sheets are associated with the application as a whole — there are three options: Standard, Chrome, and Dark.
There are a lot of great components already in the catalog, and there are also fantastic additions to JSF to provide even more high quality components. With the advancement of these extra components, some of the web applications created with JSF are indistinguishable from their desktop counterparts. Now we come to the fun part! First of all, lets recap all the scores in each category for all frameworks. Vaadin and Grails just take the top spot, which seems fair, looking at how they stood up to our tests.
Grails came out on top for 5 of the 8 categories, doing particularly well around the Rapid application development, documentation and community with top marks. It excelled in its documentation and community category which is excellent as well as the UX, look and feel category, which to be fair is what Vaadin is all about. In fact it matched it in all categories apart from 3, where Vaadin only pulled ahead by a half point in Rapid App Development, Ease of Use and Documentation and Community: arguably some good reasons that Vaadin was maybe created over GWT. Play could have finished higher, but for the framework complexities and ease of use.
We use Play at ZeroTurnaround and this is certainly the vibe from the engineering team. Once you get used to Play you can create applications very quickly, but where it really excels is in the scalability and throughput. Spring did reasonably well in quite a few categories, but really fell short in the UX, Look and Feel category as well as the Rapid Application Development category.
Wow, you made it to the end! Here we see quite a range of scores, with Grails and Play coming out on top, due to the mostly to the scaffolding support. Vaadin was close behind and the Vaadin Directory of plugins is worth a mention. Spring and Struts really struggled here, with few out of the box components.
Vaadin, GWT and Struts prove to be the simplest of frameworks with fewest dependencies, while Play struggles, particularly with its reliance on Scala knowledge and SBT. Grails and Vaadin did well when it came down to the ease of use, particularly due to the configuration, and design mode. Spring and Struts again suffered, due to the amount of knowledge required to use and the amount of configuration required.
Grails and Vaadin again took top spot with their vibrant communities and extensive docs. Struts and Wicket have problems with their official documentation, so fared badly again.
How Does It Work?
Grails and Play both have good ecosystems, including build support all the way to tools and plugins. Spring MVC also has a good ecosystem, although some of which is commercial. Other frameworks are quite specific to their task, but do have integrations with other projects. GWT and Vaadin also did well as their model is based around client side execution. Grails and Wicket did particularly well with most config relying on default convention. Vaadin and GWT excelled here, with neat usage of customizable themes and the ability to inherit from existing themes.
Presentation wise, they are both very easy on the eye.
Java MVC Frameworks Comparison | JRebel & XRebel
Spring MVC and Struts both suffered here, clearly not one of the goals of the framework. As with our Great Java App Server debate, not all frameworks are created equal. Also, in reality you might choose a combination of frameworks, rather than just one, making use of the best aspects of each framework. This is why we are preparing a second part to this report, where will measure these same frameworks from the use-case perspective, thereby slightly muting the straight numbers seen in this report.
After all, a large team of developers creating big enterprise apps might be prepared to spend more time getting set up with a more heavyweight framework rather than a hobbyist developer. So stay tuned for that, and be sure to reach out to us in the comments section below, or ping ZeroTurnaround.
Read next:. You can do so much more with so much less code compared to Java. This is the most useless Java web framework comparison I have ever red. Too generic, too subjective and biased. Nothing was said, document is full of generic boilerplate parts crowned by dusty score valuation.
Since we used Play2 for our own projects, the developers acknowledge that scala templates certainly helped in many cases, however with its own quirks. Sorry to hear you disagree so strongly. As our Rebel Labs team is mostly comprised of humans, the text will always be subjective and opinionated and I believe it makes for the most interesting and valuable of articles and reading. If you would like more in-depth information, we have posted more in-depth blog posts on most of the frameworks we discussed in the report on the Rebel Labs blog.
The report is already 50 pages, or so, in size which many think is already very long. But for building a large app, code maintainability outweighs many other factors, no?
So even Struts sits at the bottom of your list by scores, in reality, when building an app with a large number of fine grained features, limited developer resources, large number of users, which one do I pick? Hey Han, Very good points. These are actually all planned for our second part of the report. These are merely the category scores. The second report will examine real world app types and weight the categories based on their requirements. This will then allow us to provide recommendations on an app type basis. Though overall it is really a good article, but it lacks many aspects.
For e. Struts2 already providing beautiful Jquery plugin which provides many Jquery powered widgets out of the box while author is talking about Ajax support which was based on deprecated DOJO plugin. This is no easy task to compare java web frameworks so this article deserves consideration as it does a good job to summarize some of them. A more interesting comparison would involve building an advanced prototype and then looking at things such as performance, caching, lines of code etc.
Agreeing with some others here: I think there is too much bias in this article. Giving points is bound to be a problem.
Been using Struts and Vaadin in professional contexts. You always end up spending lot of time on implementation details, that are not part of any specification. Any problem with component X or feature Y? Maybe it will change in a new version and break things. In contrast, JSF has multiple implementations and is well-specified. Any problem with component Z? Check the spec, you have some reference to have the bug corrected. That also makes big difference regarding documentation, e.
Another thing that I always look at when using someone else code is typing. Vaadin, for example, is full of Object parameters, casting, string parameters, … Those things will break at runtime. JSF has still to evolve in this, but at least you can get your java code mostly type-safe. After years of having to deal with them, my general idea of those non java-ee frameworks is that they are the work of some uncontrolled volunteers, some of them creative but not led by engineers.
The demo looks nice, but it requires a lot of knowledge of the framework only implementation. Very good comment! But could you elaborate about bias? Bias towards what? I would say that given the set of categories in which these frameworks are given the standings are pretty fair. This is a nice review really, but difficult as well. You either have to be an absolute beginner in all frameworks and then test which one you get productive with first, or you have to be an expert in all of them. In the weeks before this report there were individual reviews of most web frameworks, but not for JSF.