Hi all, I've finished most of the work on the branch, including some of the suggestions that were made in this thread. IHeaderResponse now has only 1 render method left, which takes a HeaderItem. This simplified everything related to IHeaderResponse quite a bit, and also fixed WICKET-4247. I've also implemented the circular dependency detection, fixed the original example to use the new API and added javadoc in most places.
Things that still need to be done: - Finish javadoc - Add some more tests - Fix WICKET-4000 and WIKCET-4235 (which I'd rather do after this branch has been merged into wicket) The code can still be found on github at: https://github.com/papegaaij/wicket/compare/trunk...wicket%2Bwiquery Best regards, Emond On Friday 02 December 2011 09:33:44 Emond Papegaaij wrote: > Hi all, > > For the past few weeks, and especially the last few days, Hielke Hoeve and I > have been working on improvements to resource management in Wicket. Most of > the improvements are based on work in WiQuery, but the actual > implementation is from scratch. The targets for the improvements can be > found in WICKET-4273. In short, it boils down to following points: > - Dependency support for resources > - Sorting of resources in the header > - Native resource bundle support in Wicket > - Aggregating many small scripts into 1 large script tag, esp. for events > > The target for these changes will be Wicket 6 and the work in progress can > be found on github: > https://github.com/papegaaij/wicket/compare/trunk...wicket%2Bwiquery > > At the moment, all features, except the resource bundles are implemented and > working. Documentation is still missing on most places. I've also not yet > come to writing tests and an example on how to use it. > > Please provide your feedback on the code, here on the mailing list or at > JIRA. > > Note to Jeremy: I deleted some of the code you contributed to Wicket 1.5 > because there was a large overlap in functionality, and it proved difficult > to keep the old code working as is. It would be great if you could shed > some light on what the exact problem was, you were trying to solve with > that code, so I can make sure that it can also be solved with this new > approach. > > Best regards, > Emond Papegaaij
