Wicket is more of a component based framework (like JSF and tapestry), rather than a request based framework like struts. One of the really great thing about wicket is that it uses plain XHTML for templating, which enforces a clearer separation between presentation and logic, and allows the templates to be edited with traditional WYSIWYG editors.
Isn't this more of a restriction that Wicket is tightly bound to XHTML for the presentation layer? At least for JSF it's often propagated as an advantage that JSF is not restricted to specific output format like HTML or XHTML... In fact I've got almost no experience with JSF, it's just out of curiosity.
Wicket can render any kind of XML (including non-compliant dialects like HTML). So far we only ship a set of components that work with X/HTML, but a few people have written alternatives such as WML already. The nice thing about Wicket is that it is so easy to write new components.
In JSF each component can have more then one renderer. So you can have a JSF app render into HTML/WML/telnet without changing a line of code and if you only use components that provide all those renderers. Keeping in mind that we are talking strictly about UI here, do you think that pages you layed out with HTML and a 1024x768 screen will look good on a tiny phone screen in WML without any intervention? Do you think your app will be as usable over telnet as an app written with telnet in mind?
I think this is a feature that JSF proponents always shout about when comparing with other frameworks because JSF is the only major tech out there that has it. But then you have to think WHY it is the only major tech that does?
I do some of my very best work in water. Like this tiny ad: