just a question to you Igor and Eelco:
some here like it and others dont like it, so wouldnt be an different
project like wicket-extension the part for this? couldn't this be
applied similar to the wicket-jmx plugin where you just dump the jar
into the classpath and have it registering and enabling itself?
I mean I personally would prefer to have a slim wicket-core but dont see
a reason to forbid this as a dependencyjar (e.g: Special BasePage ala
MultiWebPage) as this would mean a missing package and be shown in every
IDE?
Best
Korbinian
Igor Vaynberg schrieb:
On Nov 7, 2007 1:39 PM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You wouldn't write such a component for general purposes obviously.
ok, that right there i really really dont like. define "general
purpose"? so now we have features in wicket that are guaranteed to
work and others that arent? this is going to turn the framework into
an abysmal pile of crap. why should i only use some "safe" subset when
writing a component im planning on reusing across projects?
-igor
Of
course it can be optional (it might have to be a whole separate tag
rather than building on wicket:extend); it's up to the users after
that.
Eelco
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
