I could have made it a lot clearer by saying that the factory would produce objects inside a Wicket container. So as Swing uses AWT as a container we would use adapted Wicket components as the containers...
Sorry, have never done any Swing so the analogy wasn't obvious. Been in struts like world for too long. igor.vaynberg wrote: > > i dont see why it wouldnt work for you. i know some people who use osgi > with > wicket did this a while ago and no problems. > > -igor > > On 8/22/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Would it make sense in Wicket to have a factory, for at least common >> components like Button etc, that use interfaces rather than concrete >> classes >> in their signature? >> >> We have a requirement to have two target browsers. Full bells and >> whistles >> Ajax version and some JavaScript (IE5 and IE5.5) so I thought the factory >> pattern might allow me to return different components based on the client >> browser. >> >> Also, my tech lead can control what parts of a component a developer >> should >> play with. >> >> Maybe it is just coming from GWT or that pattern text books use Widgets >> as >> their example for Factory pattern but it seems like a reasonable thing to >> do? Anbody else tried this? Worked out well? Top tips? >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Component-Factory-and-code-against-interface-tf4311047.html#a12272781 >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Component-Factory-and-code-against-interface-tf4311047.html#a12310411 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
