yes, that makes sense. howevern, i still like ondestroy() better then
destroy(). ondestroy() makes it clear it is a listener.
-igor
On 6/20/07, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually there is also a protected internalDestroy (still not final
though) which calls destroy so why not put callDestroyers there ?
Maurice
On 6/20/07, Sean Sullivan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 6/20/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > From the Application#destroy() javadoc:
> >
> > /**
> > * Called when wicket servlet is destroyed.
> > * Overrides do not have to call super.
> > */
> > protected void destroy()
> > {
> > callDestroyers();
> > }
> >
> > That's not ideal - surely we want to be certain the destroyers are
called?
> >
> > I think we should make this method final, and provide an onDestroy()
> > hook that is called within it.
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Al
> >
> > --
> > Alastair Maw
> > Wicket-biased blog at http://herebebeasties.com
> >
>
