I'd rather not put it in a separate project. The number of sub projects is growing again and if we can provide a way to maximize reuse of project infrastructure, then I'm for that.
I tried looking in the archives for a discussion on moving them into extensions, but didn't find it. I guess the reasoning was similar to mine: no need to add another jar/module. Martijn On 6/20/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Timo Rantalaiho wrote: > On Tue, 19 Jun 2007, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> dont know if we need a separate wicket-ioc which wont be very useful by >> itself, we could just move that stuff into extensions. > > I think that it would be very useful by itself (as a possible > proxified version of @Configurable of Spring) and even without > wicket. Hmm, well at the moment, it depends on org.apache.wicket.Component, and requires IComponentInstantiationListener and things as well, so it's not really that standalone. I still think requiring extensions seems churlish, though, so wicket-ioc it shall be. Regards, Al -- Alastair Maw Wicket-biased blog at http://herebebeasties.com
-- Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
