I was going to let you folks come to your own conclusions and
hopefully we wouldn't re-hash the discussion here.
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 8:21 PM, Clint Popetz wrote:
> Is that a way of saying "please don't spend wicket users bandwidth
> with 100+ explanations of why this is not a good ORM for any
lets keep this list reserved for wicket-related flamewars only, keep
the other ones on tss :)
-igor
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 5:21 PM, Clint Popetz wrote:
> Is that a way of saying "please don't spend wicket users bandwidth
> with 100+ explanations of why this is not a good ORM for any
> reasonabl
Is that a way of saying "please don't spend wicket users bandwidth
with 100+ explanations of why this is not a good ORM for any
reasonably complex use case? :)
Oops, too late.
-Clint
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:07 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> Fellow Wicketeers,
>
> Please see the discussion at TSS a
Fellow Wicketeers,
Please see the discussion at TSS about this framework:
http://www.theserverside.com/news/thread.tss?thread_id=54535
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Jim Xie wrote:
> Dear Wicket Users,
>
>
> Dreamsource ORM has been used in three major applications for over three
> years. I
Dear Wicket Users,
Dreamsource ORM has been used in three major applications for over three
years. It solves the following problems:
1. Whatever you codes happens in database.
2. No detached enhanced object. So it can be used with any frameworks
like Spring, GWT.
3. No lazy loading.
