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 [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/liftweb?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
