Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration (a few explanations)

igor.vaynberg wrote: anywho. why even talk about this? there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this is there? -igor Of course not. I only want to expose another way of doing something. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration (a few explanations)

not. I only want to expose another way of doing something. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16977391.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com

Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration (a few explanations)

. Our common application has about ten services. I respect all your visions about how a right architecture must be, but our vision is different. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16953853.html Sent from

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration (a few explanations)

architecture must be, but our vision is different. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16953853.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration (a few explanations)

://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16953853.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional

Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration

-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16930960.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration

() As the applications class is not serializable, there are no need to make transient magic. What do you think about this approach? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16930960.html Sent from the Wicket - User

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration

: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16930960.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration

MyApplication.get().getAaaService() As the applications class is not serializable, there are no need to make transient magic. What do you think about this approach? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 12:15:22PM +0200, Daniel Fernández Garrido wrote: Service interfaces are not serializable (normally), and thus they should be declared as transient here, and provide a way to recover the object after page serialization. Erm, I think you mean service implementations.

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration

On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:15 AM, Daniel Fernández Garrido [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The problem here is that, in a Serializable class (the page), you are declaring a non-serializable attribute (the service). Service interfaces are not serializable (normally), and thus they should be declared

Re: Spring 2.5 and Wicket, our vision about integration

an inflexible non appropriate technically right way if I had the choice. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16951154.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com