On Aug 17, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Clint Popetz wrote: > > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Ove Ranheim <[email protected]> wrote: > Clint, > > What is it specifically that you will benefit from taking this into Wicket? > What plans do you have and what would be to the better? > > Please enlighten me, but what's the problem for "the resource you're trying > to convince" of not contributing under the Seam umbrella. Why is it a problem > for the wicket team to stay in sync with releases? Isn't it approx a year > between every Wicket release? > > > The idea is that if wicket 1.x is released, wicket-cdi 1.x will be released > simultaneously. In addition, as wicket evolves, the person most familiar > with its evolution (Igor) will have responsibility for keeping the > integration current. Finally, wicket already supports other dependency > injection frameworks (spring, juice) as wicket modules, so it makes sense for > the cdi module to live alongside those, and will give cdi more exposure for > those looking to use dependency injection in wicket. >
There's a danger with two many "currents" and no well architected umbrella. I'd rather see many more frameworks being integrated on top of Solder. It's a concern that reusability will suffer due different strategies of implementation. What Solder, Faces, Servlet and more, really does well. Is to make a unified glue layer to fully integrate with different technologies. I'm not too confident moving Wicket out in it's own Wicket CDI module. IMHO, it'll be an Igor vs a whole Seam Community empowerment where talking about here. Has Igor fully evaluated the Seam Solder eco-system? Will you make a new Wicket CDI Int, Servlet, Catch module too. Eventually, how well will a mixed platform play together in the future!? Is Wicket strategy to stay Wicket and no other than Wicket should get in. However, your argument is sensible. Ove > -Clint > > -Ove > > On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Clint Popetz wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I have a proposal from one of the wicket committers (Igor Vaynberg, who is >> also one of my employees) to transition seam-wicket to become a wicket >> module that integrates wicket with weld, so that it's supported by the >> wicket team. This is a net win, in my opinion, because (a) the only code in >> seam wicket is really just code to configure wicket's request cycle to >> start/stop conversations and perform injection and has no other seam >> dependencies, (b) this allows the release to be correctly synced to the >> wicket releases, which we currently lag and are thus not compatible with, >> and (c) he has more time to maintain this than I do, and would do a better >> job of it. >> >> Is this acceptable to the seam team? The only thing I really need is for >> the weld 1.1.1 artifacts to be in the central m2 repo, because wicket is >> published there and the central repo doesn't let you have dependencies on >> non-central-repo artifacts. Is that reasonable/possible? >> >> Thanks, >> -Clint >> >> -- >> Clint Popetz >> http://42lines.net >> Scalable Web Application Development >> _______________________________________________ >> seam-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev > > > > > -- > Clint Popetz > http://42lines.net > Scalable Web Application Development
_______________________________________________ seam-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
