Understood. Just introducing it as a possibility.
-Original Message-
From: James Carman [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:40 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Can @SpringBeans be optional?
That's not a dependency injection thing. It's
at 7:59 AM, Loritsch, Berin C.
berin.lorit...@gd-ais.com wrote:
Understood. Just introducing it as a possibility.
-Original Message-
From: James Carman [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 3:40 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Can
not right now. you can always file an rfe to add something like
@SpringBean(optional=true)
-igor
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:46 AM, Anthony DePalma fatef...@gmail.com wrote:
Often with spring I give some of my services extra features if they are
configured in the xml for it, but otherwise if
Define a getter for your service that returns null by default, and in
your Spring enabled session return the injected bean.
Martijn
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:46 PM, Anthony DePalma fatef...@gmail.com wrote:
Often with spring I give some of my services extra features if they are
configured in
Technically speaking from the Dependency Injection koolaid doctrine, the
best way to solve the problem is to have a null implementation of your
service that does nothing. The code you are writing doesn't have to
have complex if/else logic as it's able to assume the service is always
there. The
That's not a dependency injection thing. It's a design pattern
called the Null Object pattern.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:38 PM, Loritsch, Berin C.
berin.lorit...@gd-ais.com wrote:
Technically speaking from the Dependency Injection koolaid doctrine, the
best way to solve the problem is to have
