Eelco Hillenius wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 5:53 PM, Chris Colman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:heh, well....you can be against this, but i think if we take a vote right now most core-devs with binding votes will vote this down....I still can't see the reason for the negativity of some of the core-devs: this is an existing feature.People just have different opinions. And the opinions tend to be strong around here. :-)
Well, we obviously can't complain too much about your opinions, because Wicket is a really good framework and very well thought out. :-)
Still I'd like to know *why* you don't like it, though I can imagine you're getting tired of this thread.
We're just proposing to enhance an existing feature - evolution not revolution.I think that regardless who is right or wrong here, we should just do this as a separate project, with separate tags. The advantage for the people who like this is then that they can implement it however they feel it should be done, and won't need to have crazy long threads to decide on things. And the core team doesn't have to support something they don't fully agree with. If we do that, I think everyone should be happy, and we can close the case, right?
Unfortunately, that is not really the case.- I would prefer the same tag (it is 100% backwards compatible, and it is the same feature it is now, but with the restriction n=1 dropped).
- I would prefer to have it in core Wicket because otherwise it's another dependency with extra configuration to activate it.
That said, if there's no other way, a separate project is the next-best-thing. Maybe it's a better way to go about it: prove the concept, get it stable, and try get it in core later. ;-)
Regards, Sebastiaan
Cheers, Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
