Hi Olger, Yes, I am aware of that. Wicket-security should remain backward compatible. Unfortunately that will require me to revert your commit for anonymous inner classes, which breaks some of our applications (and probably others as well). However, I will not do so before adding the ComponentSubclassPermission, which we discussed on wicket-users last week.
My first focus is on the wicket 1.3.x branch, which does not have a stable release version. I've just merged the changes from trunk to that branch and am now working on the pom. Best regards, Emond Papegaaij On Monday 11 January 2010 11:38:00 Olger Warnier wrote: > Hi Emond, > > Good luck and have fun. > Please note there are others (outside topicus) that depend on the wicket > security framework. > > Kind Regards, > > Olger > > On 11 jan 2010, at 10:08, Emond Papegaaij wrote: > > Thanks > > > > On Monday 11 January 2010 09:58:33 Martijn Dashorst wrote: > >> Added. > >> > >> On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 9:49 AM, Emond Papegaaij > >> > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> After Maurice's car accident, no-one really stood up to maintain > >>> wicket- security. I would like to continue the work on his project, > >>> because we at Topicus (the company Maurice worked for) still heavily > >>> depend on Wasp/Swarm. > >>> > >>> My goal is to release stable versions of wicket-security, so we no > >>> longer need to depend on SNAPSHOT. I also would like to add some new > >>> features, like a ComponentSubclassPermission, which was discussed on > >>> the wicket-users mailing list. > >>> > >>> Can I get commit access for wicket-stuff? My SF id is 'papegaaij'. > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> Emond Papegaaij >
