Hi eelco. Did you see what I changed in order to make this working? There is nearly no extra complexity. So I think complexity isn't an argument here.
best regards -- stefan Eelco Hillenius wrote: > >> In conclusion, the proposed change: >> - is useful >> - does not have to be used if you don't like it >> - is 100% backwards compatible >> - it introduces no new tags (if using child/extends) > > The thing is though, even though it is 100% backwards compatible, it > is something we'll have to support. It adds complexity to the > implementation, and we'll have to answer questions about it on the > list. That would be fine if everyone would have been wildly > enthusiastic about it, but that is not the case - whether you think > that is justified or not. > > So, like I propose in the main thread, the best way to go is to > implement this as a separate project, using separate tags. We'll be > happy to support any internal API changes if that is needed to make > the implementation work. The advantage of having this separate project > is that such inheritance would be available for people who like it, > and hey, maybe in the longer term you have something that works so > good that you can convince people based on something that works. > Executable code works much better than simply words when it comes to > that ;-) > > Do people want to work on this? > > Regards, > > Eelco > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- ------- Stefan Fußenegger http://talk-on-tech.blogspot.com // looking for a nicer domain ;) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Attempted-summary-of-multiple-%3Cwicket%3Achild--%3E-thread-tf4767718.html#a13643264 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
