> i didn't say that's fine. it's clearly not. i was just pointing out > there's > another side to this argument because java's protection attributes are > so coarse grained. by not supporting this feature, some classes which > otherwise would have all implementation details private would be forced > to make those details public JUST to allow wicket to update the model. > this may be the java way at present, but it's not "fine" either. this is > why i suggested a switch to turn this on rather than just abandoning > the feature. it's basically a no-win situation where you can choose your > poison. i'm just advocating that we let people make that choice for > themselves.
Well, it's good we have this discussion. I think we never seriously had it. Or it's my lousy memory again :) It's kind of a theoretical problem too though imho. Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
