On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
+1 (non-binding)
--
timothy
Oops. I guess I should vote :-)
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
Upayavira
Upayavira wrote:
Folks,
Without further ado (and before my PC dies again), I'd like to call a
vote on accepting Wicket into the incubator.
As previously mentioned, the Wicket community held a
The vote has now, IMO, had enough time to run.
To summarise, we had 8 binding +1s, from Leo Simons, Alex Karasulu,
Jason van Zyl, Justin Erenkrantz, Don Brown, Yoav Shapira, Robert
Burrell Donkin, Upayavira, and one binding -0 from Greg Stein.
We also had eight non-binding +1s.
This means that
Congratulations and good luck to the wicket team ;)
Yoav
On 8/28/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 :)
-Igor
On 8/28/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Welcome Wicket!
Thanks a lot everyone! Looking forward to start incubation.
Eelco
Yoav Shapira wrote:
Congratulations and good luck to the wicket team ;)
+1 (binding)
:)
Alex
Yoav
On 8/28/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 :)
-Igor
On 8/28/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Welcome Wicket!
Thanks a lot everyone! Looking forward to start
The model sounds cool, but I don't happen to like it.
Fair enough. :-)
There are several projects in the Incubator for which I could personally say
the same thing. But other ASF Members like them, and that's all good. :-)
With respect to Wicket, well I happen to like JavaServer Pages, so
On 8/25/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Upayavira wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
FYI: this is a majority vote not subject to vetos. So, there's no
requirement that you provide a reason for voting against it - just
like you don't have to provide a reason why you're voting
Greg,
Basically wicket creates a session for every user and then attaches a java
object graph to that session, with parts shared between sessions. Then there
are some mechanisms for attaching id-ed objects in that graph to id-ed
elements in an HTML template, and rendering directions for the merge
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
- robert
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
On 8/25/06, Leo Simons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Wicket *is* different.
Excellent. Thanks a bunch for the thorough reply and comparison
points. Very helpful.
Whether this is the right way to do things is
debatable, but I would say now is not the right time for the incubator to start
On Fri, Aug 25, 2006 at 04:46:13AM -0700, Greg Stein wrote:
Whether this is the right way to do things is
debatable, but I would say now is not the right time for the incubator to
start
having those kinds of debates.
I'm not trying to start a debate, nor engaging in any debate. I
offered
Folks,
Without further ado (and before my PC dies again), I'd like to call a
vote on accepting Wicket into the incubator.
As previously mentioned, the Wicket community held a unanimous vote to
approach the incubator. The vote thread is here:
Searching for '[VOTE]' on the wicket archives isn't enough to find the
relevant vote :-(
Here's the correct link:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net/index.html#08853
Upayavira
Upayavira wrote:
Folks,
Without further ado (and before my PC dies again), I'd like
On Thursday 24 August 2006 15:02, Upayavira wrote:
So, please cast your votes:
[x] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
(non-binding)
Cheers
Niclas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands,
+1 (non-binding)
regards,
Martin
On 8/24/06, Niclas Hedhman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 24 August 2006 15:02, Upayavira wrote:
So, please cast your votes:
[x] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
(non-binding)
Cheers
Niclas
On Thu, Aug 24, 2006 at 12:02:53AM -0700, Upayavira wrote:
Without further ado (and before my PC dies again), I'd like to call a
vote on accepting Wicket into the incubator.
snip/
= Wicket Proposal =
This proposal outlines the creation of a new top-level Wicket project
within the Apache
On 8/24/06, Ersin Er [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Wicket vs. Struts: http://www.wicket-wiki.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Struts
Bleh. That page confuses a lot of things. It conflates disparate
components (e.g. Struts and JSP) in order to form opinions. It appears
that Wicket also does state
I've never used Wicket, but I've done a fair number of webapps using
similar component frameworks, such as WebObjects and Tapestry. All I
can say - it is hard to argue about component frameworks with people
who never used them. The benefit is essentially a different more
developer-friendly
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
/Gwyn
P.S. We'll be happy to discuss Why Wicket or the Wicket homepage
marketing-speak, but I don't think this thread's the place to do it!
--
Download Wicket 1.2.1 now! - http://wicketframework.org
Upayavira wrote:
So, please cast your votes:
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
+1
Alex
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
+1
On 24 Aug 06, at 3:02 AM 24 Aug 06, Upayavira wrote:
Folks,
Without further ado (and before my PC dies again), I'd like to call a
vote on accepting Wicket into the incubator.
As previously mentioned, the Wicket community held a unanimous vote to
approach the incubator. The vote thread is
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...=== Name ===
Obviously, the
...
Looks like something's missing on that line, it ends after Obviously,
the.
Not having a good day. That was where I started saying that I'd done a
US trademark search that showed
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
...Not sure if binding or not, I've signed up as a mentor for Wicket but
didn't participate in incubator activities before.
Currently non-binding. But, as an ASF member, you should ask the
Incubator PMC to join.
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, please cast your votes:
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL
+1
On 8/24/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, please cast your votes:
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
FYI: this is a majority vote not subject to vetos. So, there's no
requirement that you provide a reason for voting against it -
Hi,
+1.
Yoav
On 8/24/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 8/24/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, please cast your votes:
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this
+1 (non-binding)
On 8/24/06, Yoav Shapira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
+1.
Yoav
On 8/24/06, Don Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 8/24/06, Justin Erenkrantz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, please cast your votes:
[X] +1 Accept
On 8/24/06, Greg Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 8/24/06, Ersin Er [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
Wicket vs. Struts: http://www.wicket-wiki.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Struts
Bleh. That page confuses a lot of things. It conflates disparate
components (e.g. Struts and JSP) in order to form opinions.
On 8/24/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
I'm developing a desktop application. You can object to the importance
we give to providing a clean OO model, and argue that our tradeoffs
are ill chosen, but I believe Wicket fills a gap in the web framework
sphere.
I didn't object... I
I didn't object... I voted -0 based on the information I was pointed
out, which (as you said) is not a very good comparison point.
*shrug*
Sorry if I came across too strongly. Igor pointed out my reply had a
bit of a zealous tone to it. My only goal was to explain the idea
behind Wicket a bit.
Upayavira wrote:
[X] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
+1, non-binding
Ross
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
On 8/24/06, Upayavira [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ] +1 Accept Wicket as an Incubator podling
[ ] 0 Don't care
[ ] -1 Reject this proposal for the following reason:
FYI: this is a majority vote not subject to vetos. So, there's no
requirement that you provide a
Upayavira wrote:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
FYI: this is a majority vote not subject to vetos. So, there's no
requirement that you provide a reason for voting against it - just
like you don't have to provide a reason why you're voting for it. If
you want to provide a reason, great, but I
34 matches
Mail list logo
