• Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic

Tapestry Vs Wicket

 
anandram venkataswamy
Greenhorn
Posts: 9
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hai,

Is the "Tapestry " and "Wicket" of same type? Does the book give an detailed idea of Tapestry Comparative Study with other similar FrameWorks.

Thankyou,
Anandram.V
[ March 04, 2008: Message edited by: anandram venkataswamy ]
 
Alexander Kolesnikov
author
Ranch Hand
Posts: 99
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
As far as I know, Wicket comes from the same roots as Tapestry, but technically it is less efficient, i.e. it is less useful for an application where scalability is important. Tapestry 5 takes a special care of scalability, amongst other things.

Comparing even a few frameworks is a huge task. I've written an MSc dissertation comparing Tapestry 3, JSF and Struts, but that was almost three years ago. If you want to have a look at it, here is the link.
 
Michael Swierczek
Ranch Hand
Posts: 125
1
Clojure Java Linux
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Alexander Kolesnikov,
My first question for any web framework is always, "Why would I want to use this instead of Struts 1.x?" That dissertation looks like a fantastic sales pitch for Tapestry, I will probably read the entire thing. Thank you very much for providing it.

I am not, by the way, a huge fan of Struts 1.x. I simply already know it, so I don't have to worry about any learning curve.
 
Alexander Kolesnikov
author
Ranch Hand
Posts: 99
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
Hi Michael,

The dissertation isn't a sales pitch, it was a discovery of someone who used to work with servlets and JSP.

Struts can be seen as the most popular actions-based framework, while Tapestry is the most user-friendly components-based framework. And the difference between actions and components is evolutionary, similar to the difference between procedural and object-oriented programming.

From my point of view, the fact that Java web frameworks are still mostly action-based is a sign of some stagnation in the Java camp.

I was reading FAQ at Struts 2 website recently, and there was an opinion that Struts 2 is good for web sites - i.e. pages with mostly static content, like blogs - while component-based frameworks are better for web applications, something highly dynamic with complex interfaces. I would agree with this.
 
arulk pillai
Author
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3380
  • 0
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Quote
  • Report post to moderator
And the difference between actions and components is evolutionary, similar to the difference between procedural and object-oriented programming.


As you have rigthly pointed out the component based frameworks improve reusability. For example one could build up a standard glorified table component with check boxes, sorting, row based action button, style etc and can keep reusing that in a number of other pages and projects. This will improve the developer productivity as well as standardization of the look and feel and end user experience.

Also component based frameworks have a number of design advantages over action based ones like clear separation of navigation rules, loosely couples your model, more scalable, reusable and maintainable.
 
I agree. Here's the link: http://aspose.com/file-tools
  • Post Reply
  • Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic