far as documentation i dont know, its
pretty
obvious from the code. wicket.validator package doesnt have dependencies
on
any other package in wicket. maybe someday it will be its own little
project.
-igor
On 5/9/07, Jon Steelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Is this decoupling (& example of
Is this decoupling (& example of multiple use) concept expressed in the
javadocs? I didn't see it on the 1.2.6 documentation. Would be good to
capture it, maybe on the class documentation on IValidator and/or its
package javadoc.
Jon
On 5/9/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no. don
FYI - The last bullet from the first list on the Welcome section on
the home page says "Download Wicket 1.2.5" when it should say 1.2.6.
Jon
I'm curious if the case would ever come up where someone wants to extend a
Clusterable class but not want the extended class to itself be Clusterable.
On 2/28/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I'm making an inventory of classes that should be instrumented by
Terracotta if you
I understand that 3.x hasn't been started yet, but I'm curious what - if
anything - is being held off for 3.x instead of being done in 2.x? For
example, if 2.x is allowed to and will have for example API changes, what
type of change qualifies waiting for 3.x versus 2.x?
Thanks,
Jon
On 2/6/07, M
I now have a measure of you, Igor, and find you unable to have a fair
exchange of understanding and mutual improvement. Too bad for you.
Thanks,
Jon
On 2/5/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you have to understand how frustrating this is.
it happened when MVEL came out and now its happening with t5. our users
read
about something new and shiny and then post emails like yours to the list
without doing any research. so what happens
Eelco,
Good points about the planning with the unanticipated incubation & book
writing.
On 2/5/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so please next time before posting something like this at least read up
Igor,
Wow, nice & complete post. Your final line changes the tone of your post a
On 2/5/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
what i got out of it is that two of things that he considers most
important
are
a) not having to recompile to see your changes
this wont work for wicket. the closest you get to this are jsps that are
recompiled when changed and do not depend
a lot).
And we're a Java project which also excludes us from his preferences I guess.
Regarding the martini's, I think Eelco is very good at consuming them,
not sure about his mixing qualities.
Martijn
On 2/5/07, Jon Steelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have folks se
Have folks seen this interesting albeit lengthy screencast comparing
web frameworks?
http://seankelly.tv/videos/better-web-app-development
Wicket wasn't part of the evaluation, but I would be very interested
in how Wicket would fare if Sean Kelly had included it. How do you
think Wicket would far
Then for using 2.0 how far out a deadline would you folks recommend
for a project someone is beginning now?
Jon
On 1/30/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
He talked about a March 30 deadline, so I think 1.3 would be the best
between the new features we support and stability.
Eelco
Would the roll-out of the new site design be coordinated to happen with the
release of 1.3?
Jon
On 1/11/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello,
This is a ping to keep the new site design alive. Martijn, is Vincent
done with the new design, or is he still tweaking? Can we compile
This sets a pretty high standardis Wicket 2.0 going to be as much better
than Wicket 1.x than this new look is compared to the old?
:-)
I'm curious - why are 3 different versions of Wicket (1.2.x, 1.3.x, & 2.x)
being worked on? Isn't that a burden compared to focusing on two? When will
the 1.2.x line be let go?
Thanks,
Jon
On 12/9/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All,
We have several fixes in for 1.2.4, and one
15 matches
Mail list logo
