I disagree. We need to keep an eye out for those that begin to use the framework. We have seen enough people that randomly start to override methods just to work around some perceived wall that typically isn't there if they actually thought about their problem in the first place.
I am glad we are protective, and stubborn in that regard. It is better to err on the safe side. Martijn On 9/26/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > yep, a nicer way to support this might be to add recordenablechange, record > > visibilitychange to version manager interface > > I have very mixed feelings about this as well. Maybe we're too > spastic/ protective sometimes. Another way of going about this is to > expect people to know what they're doing when they override those > sets. I think that would be good enough for me. > > Eelco > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
