Wicket ported to Scala

apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com

25 points·timf··5 comments

I'm genuinely curious, are there a good number of people that use Wicket?

A while back I was evaluating using Tapestry5 for a rewrite with my team and we had a shootout: Tapestry5 v Spring MVC v Wicket v Grails. Grails won almost in a landslide, mostly due to Groovy.

I see Wicket moving to Scala as a good thing for the framework but wonder how lively the framework community really is. Same thing with Tapestry. Back in 2006 Tapestry seemed like the most awesome framework since WebObjects. Today it seems dated.

The mailing list gets around 1100 messages a month, there are several books about it, and a few big websites have been done in it, for example m.walmart.com.

It's not up there in popularity with the few big frameworks, but I wouldn't worry about its death.

In by brief excursion to Java-land I got the impression that it is pretty popular. I investigated a couple of frameworks, and my choice for a simple application was Click, but the other team working on more advanced app chose Wicket.

My personal thoughts would be that something like Play would have ousted Wicket, but who can tell these things ;)

Just to clarify, Wicket is not moving to Scala. This is a version of Wicket implemented in Scala, created by an independent developer.

Also, the (friendly) author claims 100,077 loc in Scala in his rewrite (vs. current 137,791 loc in Java), but he is not exhibiting any code (yet). He's looking for feedback on how to go about releasing. At the end of his post he writes "How should Scala-Wicket be extended and released?"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com