>
>
>
> imho this shouldve been the default java convention. it takes more thought
> and analysis to design something to be overridable.
don't know about that, i think i would have hit my head against the wall way
way more often
then i do now. Sometimes i just HAVE to override behavior of swing
Hmm. IMO we should revert it as a regression bug. That way people
updating from 1.2.3 etc won't be bitten.
OTOH, I guess there may be lots of people who now rely on the different
functionality with their 1.2.6 projects (the 1.2.6 release has been out
for a while after all).
I'm thus fairly a
The future (> 1.3) relies on this functionality, and I guess an
upgrade from 1.2.3 -> 1.2.7 is not going to be a drop-in replacement
of a jar (was on the user list a month ago).
I think that we should keep it. 1.2.6 is the currently most downloaded
release ever. Reverting the change would mean cha
I've integrated the tabs and accordion components, along with according
examples. I'm missing time to do more ATM, but I hope this can help people
looking for such integration.
Xavier
On 8/16/07, David Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Xavier, you are welcome to merge, improve, ...
> Current
Nice, I'll take a look.
Xavier Hanin wrote:
I've integrated the tabs and accordion components, along with according
examples. I'm missing time to do more ATM, but I hope this can help people
looking for such integration.
Xavier
On 8/16/07, David Bernard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Xavier, you
On 8/17/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think it is most of the time the responsibility of the developer itself.
> If i want to override then i want to override
but if that method is not meant to be overridable then the chances are it is
going to change in the next release an
On 8/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The future (> 1.3) relies on this functionality, and I guess an
> upgrade from 1.2.3 -> 1.2.7 is not going to be a drop-in replacement
> of a jar (was on the user list a month ago).
>
> I think that we should keep it. 1.2.6 is the currently
thats why i said for internal API protection.
public api shouldn't change, but i guess thats not always what we can
guarantee
johan
On 8/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 8/17/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I think it is most of the time the responsib
Head's up for some scheduled downtime.
-- Forwarded message --
From: Joe Schaefer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Aug 17, 2007 8:59 PM
Subject: 2 hours of svn downtime Sun, Aug 19
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This Sunday I will be doing some system
upgrades to eris, the machine which hosts
o
Looking for the aggregated JavaDoc?
http://people.apache.org/~tobrien/wicket/apidocs/index.html
I'm generating this once a weekday from trunk. Still working on the
multi-site, but there's an odd complication due to the assumptions Maven
makes about project hierarchy.
1. The main project is real
thanks Tim. is it possible to remove wicket-examples from the javadoc?
doesnt make much sense imho.
-igor
On 8/17/07, Tim O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Looking for the aggregated JavaDoc?
>
> http://people.apache.org/~tobrien/wicket/apidocs/index.html
>
> I'm generating this once a week
11 matches
Mail list logo
