Hey guys, I hope that some of the initial creators of pax-wicket are still following this list. Now that I'm diving deeper and deeper and creating various use cases I come to the conclusion that it would be much easier for clients to simply register an ApplicationFacotry in the PaxWicketApplicationFactory creating and WicketApplication class and registering an onInit and an onDestroy listener (since this cannot be done directly in Wicket). Those methods could be provided in an AbstractPaxWicketApplication class (which could be optionally used by the clients). I've done a small prototype locally and couldn't see any problems by this approach. All the work currently done directly in PaxWicketApplication (and I always include PaxAuthenticatedWicketApplication) could be done in the PaxWicketApplicaionFactory (well, in the onInit and and onDestroy listeners). I'm only hesitating commiting those changes because I'm not sure y it was done in the way it is now for a specific reason.
It would be really great why the current approach was chosen in the beginning. I personally would prefer that the user directly registers a WicketApplicationFactory in the PaxWicketApplicationFactory, because that way we get PAXWICKET-10 for "free" and in addition it is much easier to implement custom security models. Thanks for response and kind regards, Andreas _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
