Hi,I haven't really heard any real arguments against this patch. Basically it's just relaxing a constraint on the current implementation of child/extend. It's not so much a new feature as improving the current feature. I am honestly interested in why people are so against it.
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
what do we need to refactor to make a plugin like this possible?
Now this is something I am much more wary of. If people start developing all sorts of "tag libraries" as extensions to Wicket, you'll get a proliferation of incompatible stuff. Personally I think it's better NOT to have this! Even though I'm in favor of the proposed extension to child/extends, I'd rather give it up than have an explosion of custom tags.
Regards, Sebastiaan
-igor On Nov 7, 2007 2:50 PM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:some here like it and others dont like it, so wouldnt be an different project like wicket-extension the part for this?That's what I'm arguing. Though thinking about it a little bit longer, it should probably not even be a core project, but rather a wicket-stuff one.couldn't this be applied similar to the wicket-jmx plugin where you just dump the jar into the classpath and have it registering and enabling itself?That would be ok only if it would apply to a whole different set of tags. Which is probably the best way to go about this anyway. Is there anything in anyone's way to implement this right now as a separate bunch of tags? Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
