Facilitating the Spread of Knowledge and Innovation in Professional Software Development

Write for InfoQ


Choose your language

InfoQ Homepage News Wicket compared with Spring WebFlow

Wicket compared with Spring WebFlow

Peter Thomas has written a detailed article about his impressions of moving a Spring MVC application to Wicket. He took a few screens from JTrac and ported them to Wicket and ended up very pleased with what Wicket had to offer.

Peter was spurred by the growing buzz around Wicket, including a December article on InfoQ. After migrating, he has come up with a list of relevant points when comparing against Spring MVC / WebFlow (he admits that he has not tried many of the other existing frameworks and so does not try to compare against them). His list of impressions:

  • Pure Java - Being productive in Wicket requires a solid grounding in Java fundamentals
  • Excellent component model
  • Real separation of concerns - all layout is done in HTML
  • No JSPs
  • Re-usability
  • Templates for web pages
  • Ajax
  • Form binding and validation

Peter's application required the use of Acegi, Spring, and Hibernate. Each of which was a straightforward integration. His last point was that Wicket does not require the use of any annotations, which was a plus for him.

In the end, Peter went from a firm believer in Spring MVC and WebFlow to a proponent of Wicket. He writes:

I found WebFlow great because it allowed me to re-use subflows. So as an example if I had a use-case like "assign task to user" and the user did not exist, I could easily call the "create user" flow and then resume the original calling flow at the point where I branched out, you know - all that continuations stuff. But now my conclusion is that you can easily do all that - and more - with Wicket.

In a similar vein, Rob Breidecker has posted an analysis of the various points to consider when choosing a web framework.

Rate this Article