This is my point - record should be more abstract... we dont want it  
depending on all that stuff.... its pointless.

@dpp or @marius... what are your thoughts?

Cheers, Tim

On 29 Sep 2009, at 12:44, Indrajit Raychaudhuri wrote:

>
> lift-record depends on lift-mapper and since lift-mapper is heavily
> dependent on lift-webkit, lift-record ends up depending on lift-webkit
> as well.
>
> So at the moment, lift-record would end up depending on lift-webkit  
> (and
> lift-widget!) indirectly even if you remove reference to lift-webkit
> (superfluous) from lift-record pom.
>
> lift-widget part is simpler (just one reference in MappedInt, intend  
> to
> take up later if somebody else don't beat me) but lift-webkit looks  
> lot
> of work.
>
> Cheers, Indrajit
>
>
> On 29/09/09 3:12 PM, Timothy Perrett wrote:
>>
>> Guys,
>>
>> I just noticed that lift-record depends on lift-webket because of  
>> some
>> calls to S... IMHO, we need to remove this because thats simply too
>> tight a coupling between the webkit and an abstract persistence
>> interface like record.
>>
>> For instance, one record abstraction I wrote isn't even used in
>> webapps...
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Cheers, Tim
>>>
>
> >
>


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Lift" group.
To post to this group, send email to liftweb@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
liftweb+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to