On Nov 29, 2007 11:37 AM, Ryan Sonnek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't quite understand this... > "Instead of having to know a ton of classes, you just have to know this one." > > I really struggled with wicket originally when trying to do these > header contributions. I was using the IDE and searching for > "Javascript*" or "CSS*" and nothing relevant came up.
Actually, if that was a while ago, that should have come up, as the first implementations had public static classes for that so that you could choose whether to use the static methods or not. That got refactored later on by Matej and possibly others. Anyway, the discussion whether this has been the best choice isn't relevant at this point. I might agree with you that maybe different classes would have been a better idea (though atm I feel neutral on the thing), but the fact is that we have this now and we're not gonna break the API at this stage. Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
