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
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to