On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 1:16 AM, Emond Papegaaij <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tuesday 23 August 2011 09:04:00 Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 11:44 PM, Emond Papegaaij >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> > For example, objects managed by weld are not detached at the end >> > of a request. >> >> erm? what is supposed to happen when? >> >> -igor > > That's something I'm not entirely sure of. The current implementation makes it > cumbersome to work with models inside scoped objects (requests can share the > same objects instances, causing multi-threading issues). I'm aware of the fact > that is inherent to the way the scopes work, but it would be nice to have > wicket-weld provide a way to cope with this. Putting it in 1.5 leaves no time > to (try to) develop an api to deal with this.
not entirely sure what you mean. requestsope and conversation scopes are threadsafe. session and application scopes are not, but that is something you have to be aware of and deal with just like with any other IOC framework... > Igor: > Did you move your code for wicket-weld to another place, or did you delete it? > We are really interested in this code, and are currently adding it to our > project. For now I've resurrected it at github.com/papegaaij/wicket-weld. It > would be nice if it is placed somewhere more central, where it could be > developed further to be included in Wicket at some later time. i will be moving it into 42lines github repo today. i was going to move it to wicketstuff but that is not possible because weld artifacts are not in central yet. -igor > > Best regards, > Emond >
