Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
Why is the binding process in Wicket left to the developer rather than the framework?
[ May 20, 2008: Message edited by: Gregg Bolinger ]
Originally posted by Eelco Hillenius:
The example you gave can easily be written much shorter, but the point of it is to show you some of the constructs available in Wicket.
Originally posted by Eelco Hillenius:
An example of both more complex UI code and DSL like construct (the markup is one line: '<div wicket:id="nodesTree"></div>') is this tree I'm right now working on:
Originally posted by Eelco Hillenius:
For instance, see Al's tutorial on how to create generic bean editor.
Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
Couldn't wicket have just as easily provided more standard "assumptions" but also provided the flexibility that you speak of?
Originally posted by Gregg Bolinger:
I'd be interested in seeing the shorter version.
Originally posted by Eelco Hillenius:
It can, but we rather have people built such things themselves. Same goes for components. While Wicket ships with a large number of reusable components, we feel the best way to use Wicket is to create your own set tailored to your needs.
Don't get me started about those stupid light bulbs. |