Well, I only know a little bit about Wicket and I really cannot compare the two frameworks. I just think that if JSF makes it at least as easy and efficient to do everything with pure Java (e.g. manipulate the component tree), then the Wicket guys won't be able to say anything against it.
I like the concept of Wicket. I like Java. Pure Java. I'm tired of superfluous dependency injections, superfluous annotations, superfluous interceptors, superfluous mocking. I mean, I know that these are necessary and useful and I'm willing to use them, but only wherever it's really appropriate. I don't want them to take over everything. Sometimes I find myself contemplating whether annotations and reflection are the new XML. There was a time when reflection was being discouraged. Now it's everywhere. Everywhere!
I'd prefer to program with interfaces, instead of annotations, [i]wherever appropriate[/i]. I'd like to keep things simple and pure. And I think that's what most people like about Wicket. Pure Java. Simplicity.
If JSF can do that as well as Wicket, then the Wicket guys won't have anything to say. I know JSF can manipulate the component tree programatically. I just don't know how it compares with Wicket in that department. Maybe it's as good, or maybe not. It's in my "to do" list to read a book about Wicket and to toy with it a little bit. I want to see how it "feels".
JSF is much better at defining the presentation layer with [i]markup[/i]. That's great. Just make the programmatic part as good as (or better than) Wicket's, and there will be no argument which framework is better.
[Message sent by forum member 'vesuvius']
http://forums.java.net/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=394540