That's awesome, Edmond! Thanks! :-)
Am 14.12.2011 um 15:47 schrieb Emond Papegaaij: > 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
