Re: AW: AW: Avoid serialization troubles with static members

javac is kinda redundant too. Real men sling raw bytecode. jk On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:02:36PM -0600, Jeremy Thomerson wrote: > vi is not only a tool, but a whole platform, so that would exclude it. > Personally, I find that > > "echo import org.apache.wicket.*" >> MyClass.java > "echo import

Re: AW: AW: Avoid serialization troubles with static members

vi is not only a tool, but a whole platform, so that would exclude it. Personally, I find that "echo import org.apache.wicket.*" >> MyClass.java "echo import java.util.*" >> MyClass.java works best. :) j/k j/k -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM,

Re: AW: AW: Avoid serialization troubles with static members

so you only use javac, java, and vi? :) -igor On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Christian Helmbold wrote: >> then I'd recommend using maven (or similar) :-) > > I try to use only tools I really nead. Sometimes it seems to me that in Java > programming most time is spent in frameworks and tools a

Re: AW: AW: Avoid serialization troubles with static members

Yes, but if the frameworks and tools can make you actually more productive, why not use them? The @SpringBean annotation-based approach just works. I've never had any troubles with it and I really don't have to think about it. There's a very shallow learning curve, especially if you're already u

AW: AW: AW: Avoid serialization troubles with static members

> then I'd recommend using maven (or similar) :-) I try to use only tools I really nead. Sometimes it seems to me that in Java programming most time is spent in frameworks and tools and not in the programming itself. But, yes, I know the JAR hell and time for maven (or Ivy?) has been come to me

Re: AW: AW: Avoid serialization troubles with static members

then I'd recommend using maven (or similar) :-) managing all dependencies manually seems to me quite masochistically and yepp, you're using an old version of spring integration then ... christian.helmbold wrote: > >> if the "org.apache" is missing, you're using an old version of wicket. > >

AW: AW: Avoid serialization troubles with static members

> if the "org.apache" is missing, you're using an old version of wicket. I use Wicket 1.4 RC2. Maybe I use an old version (1.2.7) of the Spring integration. Where can I get the current version? http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/spring.html says nothing about where to download it (without maven)..