I don't have an answer to "was is successful". I guess that depends on your parameters for "success". Yes, there are some bugs. Yes, it is useful for me. For people who use wicket and osgi, as far as I can tell it's the best solution out there.
Personally, I am very heavily invested in pax-wicket. However, from the perspective of this project, I am a user, not a developer, so I don't have time to invest in maintaining it. Essentially, I would be totally screwed without it.... at least for the next year or so, and maybe a little longer. That being said, though, I do not insist that it remain "up and visible" as you describe below. Cheers, =David On Mar 5, 2009, at 4:40 PM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Gang, > I know there are some people using Pax Wicket, and with that comes > more and more 'bug discoveries', and without an active developer > community, it will lead to disappointment. Pax Wicket was an early > experiment of what one could do with the dynamic modularity that OSGi > provides, but question remains; Was it successful? > > If the answer is No, is it reasonable to keep it up and visible for > even more people to be drawn into a failed effort? > > If the answer is Yes, then we seek the people needed to grow Pax > Wicket into the next level. I am not up for it (far too busy with Qi4j > and business-in-general), but I am willing to assist anyone or group > of people who steps up and want to actively maintain and improve it. > > > Cheers > Niclas > -- > http://www.qi4j.org - New Energy for Java > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > general@lists.ops4j.org > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general _______________________________________________ general mailing list general@lists.ops4j.org http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
