Thanks for your comment David. I'm on it :) Kind regards, Andreas
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 6:17 AM, David Leangen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, Andreas, > > I'm not sure if there was a reason or not, but even if there was, pax-wicket > was written for a (now) very old version of Wicket, so many things have > changed since then. > > I think if you believe the change is worthwhile, and if it does not cause any > loss of functionality, then even if it causes an API change, you should just > go for it. > > > Cheers, > =David > > > On Apr 15, 2011, at 1:26 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote: > >> 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > general mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general > _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
