By the way, that Felix URL should be
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/felix.html
/Gwyn
On 08/03/06, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Though felix is interesting too because we have several people using
it and not everyone uses Eclipse (including the
Or http://incubator.apache.org/felix/
On 11/03/06, Gwyn Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, that Felix URL should be
http://incubator.apache.org/projects/felix.html
/Gwyn
On 08/03/06, Alex Karasulu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Though felix is interesting too
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Though felix is interesting too because we have several people using
it and not everyone uses Eclipse (including the committers).
Can we have both? :)
+1
Let me know what we can do to help out over on the Felix side. We are
also working on AsynchWeb as an HTTP
Interesting! Wicket still builds on the servlet API, though getting
totally away from it shouldn't be too difficult. Please let us know if
you find things that should be abstracted more in order to let Wicket
work with asyncweb.
Thanks,
Eelco
Let me know what we can do to help out over on the
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Interesting! Wicket still builds on the servlet API, though getting
totally away from it shouldn't be too difficult. Please let us know if
you find things that should be abstracted more in order to let Wicket
work with asyncweb.
Sure will Eelco thanks for the support.
I'm cc'ing the ops4j list, as they are the ones so far driving Wicket
integration with OSGi.
Comments below.
On Mon, 2006-03-06 at 08:45 -0800, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
It would be cool if Wicket came with OSGi support itself. ;-)
Indeed, and we'd be happy to have Wicket support it better if
what would be great to start is for someone to setup a quickstart that
actually launches from inside eclipse equinox with the appropriate
eclipse project file/mvn pom. once all the setup is done, we (the
committers and anyone else who is interested) can start hacking on it
because you can provide
i think i speak for most committers when i say:equinox would be easier because it can be launched directly from the eclipse ide which we all use and the project's debug/run settings contain all the necessary bundles and configuration. so to launch from eclipse you just press the debug icon and
Though felix is interesting too because we have several people using
it and not everyone uses Eclipse (including the committers).
Can we have both? :)
Eelco
On 3/7/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think i speak for most committers when i say:
equinox would be easier because it
i think i speak for most committers when i say:
equinox would be easier because it can be launched directly from the
eclipse ide which we all use and the project's debug/run settings
contain all the necessary bundles and configuration. so to launch from
eclipse you just press the debug
On Tue, 2006-03-07 at 23:23 -0800, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Though felix is interesting too because we have several people using
it and not everyone uses Eclipse (including the committers).
Can we have both? :)
:-)
Actually, I wouldn't mind trying out Equinox. I'm using Oscar now, and
am
sure, others use felix and other ides, but i think in the beginning most contributions would have to come from us because we will be modifying core parts of wicket.as i said, the less time i have to spend on tinkering and setup the more time i have to spend on the actually coding.
so yes felix
Agreed.
On 3/7/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sure, others use felix and other ides, but i think in the beginning most
contributions would have to come from us because we will be modifying core
parts of wicket.
as i said, the less time i have to spend on tinkering and setup the
Sounds neat indeed.
Eelco
On 3/6/06, David Leangen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I locally modified the Wicket Quickstart project so that the Wicket app
can be debugged in the IDE (Eclipse) and deployed as an OSGi bundle.
If anybody's interested, please let me know and I'll ask the appropriate
How much work would it be, and how 'intrusive' is it for non-osgi users?i.e. can it be in one package without biting one another?MartijnOn 3/6/06,
Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sounds neat indeed.EelcoOn 3/6/06, David Leangen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I locally modified the Wicket
How much work would it be, and how 'intrusive' is it for non-osgi
users?
Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by intrusive.
In keeping with OSGi principles, there are no particular requirements
upon the individual classes. So, the classes that are already in the
project (or bundle in
what special things do you think we need to have good osgi support?-IgorOn 3/6/06, David Leangen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: How much work would it be, and how 'intrusive' is it for non-osgi
users?Well, I guess that depends on what you mean by intrusive.In keeping with OSGi principles, there are no
It would be cool if Wicket came with OSGi support itself. ;-)
Indeed, and we'd be happy to have Wicket support it better if we get
good suggestions :) If you have any, please submit.
Eelco
---
This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a
18 matches
Mail list logo
