On Wed, 2009-11-11 at 15:59 +0100, Olivier Croisier wrote: > Hi, > > WICKET-1847 is more than a year old and has had no activity for more than a > year, whereas the WICKET-1945 was more revent and seemed interesting to me, > so I corrected it. > But in my opinion, even if the former is the target architecture, nothing > prevents from integrating my patch now (in the 1.4.x branch for example) and > benefit from the type safety in the meantime. What is the actual benefit of this type safety?
If it is prefered to be enum I would prefer to use org.apache.wicket.util.lang.EnumeratedType which is extendable. > > Olivier > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:42 PM, Jonas <barney...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I thought the plan for 1.5 was going into the opposite direction: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1847 > > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 3:34 PM, Olivier Croisier > > <olivier.crois...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I just submitted a patch that converts the runtime configuration types > > > ("development", "deployment") into a type-safe Enum. > > > See https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1945 > > > > > > Hope that helps, > > > Olivier > > > > >
