OK, I've extracted a new wicket-portlets project and it is available here:
* http://wicket-stuff.svn.sf.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/branches/wicket-1.3/wicket-portlets * http://wicket-stuff.svn.sf.net/svnroot/wicket-stuff/branches/wicket-1.3/wicket-portlet-examples/ I also updated our migration guide and send an adoption letter to the user list for our 'orphaned' porlet support. Martijn On 3/18/07, Janne Hietamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yep, that should be all. Janne On 18.3.2007, at 15.08, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > I've moved the wicket-portlet-examples from Apache to wicket-stuff > svn. > > Is the portlet support only contained in the following packages? > > wicket.protocol.http.portlet > wicket.protocol.http.portlet.pages > > ? > > Martijn > > On 3/18/07, Janne Hietamäki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> +1 >> >> Yeah, let's move the portlet support to the wicket-stuff or some >> subproject in apache. I could finally fix the two known bugs, but >> since I'm not really using portlet stuff in any real-world >> application, the portlet support would still be highly experimental/ >> incomplete. >> >> Janne >> >> >> On 18.3.2007, at 2.07, Eelco Hillenius wrote: >> >> > +1 >> > >> > Eelco >> > >> > On 3/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff >> >> for real >> >> projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and >> >> breaks. i dont >> >> think we should have something that is potentially broken/ >> >> incomplete in our >> >> releases >> >> >> >> -igor >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very >> >> well, >> >> > at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that >> do know >> >> > something about portlets are too busy with other things. >> >> > >> >> > I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples >> >> but >> >> > that didn't work. I know there are several people using the >> portlet >> >> > integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions >> >> about >> >> > it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option. >> >> And it >> >> > would cost us a feature checkmark. >> >> > >> >> > I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support >> out of >> >> > core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to >> >> > maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work, >> the >> >> > better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain >> >> it, we >> >> > could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie. >> >> > >> >> > What do you think? >> >> > >> >> > Martijn >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com >> >> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket >> >> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! >> >> > http://wicketframework.org >> >> > >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! > http://wicketframework.org
-- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
