well, of course.


Matej Knopp-2 wrote:
> 
> Having facebook support in extensions? Well, this is definitely
> something we should agree on first i think.
> 
> -Matej
> 
> On Nov 23, 2007 12:11 AM, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> great.  at least eelco and i think it should be wicket-extensions (for
>> 1.4)
>> because of the importance of it.  would you be willing to take it over?
>> i will not have time to work on this much.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ryan Gravener-2 wrote:
>> >
>> > I am interested in making wicket work with facebook.  I have made some
>> > fbml
>> > components in wicket, so I am looking forward to seeing the project on
>> > wicket-stuff.
>> >
>> > On 22/11/2007, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> yeah, the contraint framework does have licensing issues.  i don't
>> >> know how hard it might be to solve this, but i can try some contacts
>> >> at sun and see.
>> >>
>> >> i too would like to see facebook support in wicket as quickly as
>> >> possible.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> thoof is considering open sourcing these components:
>> >> >
>> >> > Nice! I would say, put them in:
>> >> >
>> >> >>  - thoof ajax feedback bubbles
>> >> >
>> >> > -> wicket-extensions
>> >> >
>> >> >>  - annotation-based constraint validation framework (based on sun's
>> >> >> constraints framework)
>> >> >
>> >> > Separate project. It introduces a new dependency right? Are there
>> any
>> >> > license issues?
>> >> >
>> >> >>  - facebook support (not complete, but a basic start at addressing
>> >> this
>> >> >> problem)
>> >> >
>> >> > Depends on how far done it is and whether someone wants to take
>> >> > ownership (I know we'll do this as a team, but it would be nice if
>> >> > someone would feel responsible for making sure it gets properly
>> >> > supported). Is there someone who will be using this in a real
>> project?
>> >> >
>> >> >> but facebook support might linger in wicket-stuff until it's really
>> >> fully
>> >> >> baked.
>> >> >
>> >> > I'm typically for that approach, though in this case I think it
>> would
>> >> > really benefit Wicket if we make this a core project so that we can
>> >> > ensure the API meets our standards and it is more high profile to
>> have
>> >> > this as a core project; Facebook apps seem to get quite a bit of
>> >> > attention lately.
>> >> >
>> >> > Eelco
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/thoof-open-source-contribution-tf4858158.html#a13902989
>> >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Ryan Gravener
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/thoof-open-source-contribution-tf4858158.html#a13904794
>>
>> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/thoof-open-source-contribution-tf4858158.html#a13904938
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to