adhoc is the whole idea of stuff
it is more or less a play ground and what is becoming stable and
useable for many people then it should be promoted (wicket-extentions)
On 10/15/05, Gili [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At the very least, someone should review contrib, identify classes
offering
Only when the license is compatible and doesn't introduce a framework
stack. Wicket Stuff is not a playground. It is a place where new
components can be created and maintained. If it is used as a
playground, we should mark those projects as such: sandbox or
something else.
Martijn
On 10/15/05,
@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Wicket-user] Re: Standard for database integration? (Please!) DataView itself is a good example of the need for database
and UI integration (even its name.). Without something similar pulled into wicket.extensions, novice Wicket programmers are left to solve a pretty
Awesome job Gwyn!
-Igor
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gwyn Evans
Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 7:04 AM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] Re: Standard for database
integration? (Please
But DataView has NO dependencies. If you're worried about too many
classes in the core, just add a DataView(String id, List list)
constructor (using the ListAdapter) to DataView and get rid of
ListView.
On 10/11/05, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't agree with that. You want the
One thing I mean by integration is a built-in loadable detachable model
for Hibernate mapped objects, like what's in contrib.data and
contrib.database. After that, you need an easy way for people to fill up
list views with query results. If there weren't a use for base classes
that help in
Oh, well, I agree that the hibernate stuff should not be in the core.
On 10/13/05, Nathan Hamblen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I mean by integration is a built-in loadable detachable model
for Hibernate mapped objects, like what's in contrib.data and
contrib.database. After that, you
Fine. What about extensions?
Phil Kulak wrote:
Oh, well, I agree that the hibernate stuff should not be in the core.
On 10/13/05, Nathan Hamblen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I mean by integration is a built-in loadable detachable model
for Hibernate mapped objects, like what's in
One thing I mean by integration is a built-in loadable
detachable model for Hibernate mapped objects, like what's in
contrib.data and contrib.database.
Sorry, but if you want this feature in the ui layer then it is a tier
argument as you should be doing this through a dao object. Wicket
No,
We won't put a hibernate or spring dependency into extensions. *Maybe* the things that are
in wicket-contrib-data (note the absence of a specific product), but there definetely needs to
be some reviewing of what is good and what is bad before we upgrade things into extensions.
The dataview
Then what was Jonathan Locke talking about in this post from August?
http://jroller.com/page/JonathanLocke/20050829
If he hadn't implied there that a hibernate dependency was possible in
extensions, I wouldn't have started this discussion. wicket-stuff works
as the laboratory it's intended to
On 10/13/05, Nathan Hamblen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Then what was Jonathan Locke talking about in this post from August?http://jroller.com/page/JonathanLocke/20050829
I believe he was talking on a personal note, without thinking through
the consequences. His idea of moving it into extensions
@lists.sourceforge.netSubject: Re: [Wicket-user] Re:
Standard for database integration? (Please!)
Whatever you want to call it, I'm advocating that something "like DataView" be packaged officially with Wicket. If we can
agree on that, it's a start.
Sure, if its hard for people to find or if it wi
I don't agree with that. You want the DataView, I want JasperReports
and Dojo, and someone else wants some other project. The net effect
would be a lot of dependencies for one download.
What we still should do is:
* Make releases of the wicket-stuff projects. This has been on our
radar for weeks
I have to agree with Igor here. I didn't have to do anything
special when I started using Wicket. The DAOs and Service tier
that I had in place worked fine.
It could be argued that if you're integrating Hibernate at the Wicket
level, something is wrong in your design. However, I understand
that
DataView itself is a good example of the need for database and UI
integration (even its name.). Without something similar pulled into
wicket.extensions, novice Wicket programmers are left to solve a pretty
tricky problem right off: how do I make a ListView fill from the
database without
11, 2005 1:56 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Wicket-user] Re: Standard for database integration?
(Please!)
DataView itself is a good example of the need for database
and UI integration (even its name.). Without something
similar pulled into wicket.extensions, novice
] On Behalf Of
Nathan Hamblen
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:56 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Wicket-user] Re: Standard for database integration?
(Please!)
DataView itself is a good example of the need for database
and UI integration (even its name.). Without
-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Gwyn Evans
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:37 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] Re: Standard for database
integration? (Please!)
Coincidentally, I've just got to the stage of having
Of
Nathan Hamblen
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:56 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Wicket-user] Re: Standard for database integration?
(Please!)
DataView itself is a good example of the need for database
and UI integration (even its name.). Without something
similar pulled
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Nathan
Hamblen
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 1:56 PM
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: [Wicket-user] Re: Standard for database integration?
(Please!)
DataView itself is a good example of the need for database and UI
integration
21 matches
Mail list logo
