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
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---