Understood. Just want to make it aware that the current pattern makes it impossible for other projects (wicketstuff) to add header contributions in the "standard/supported" way. When I created the FeedResource, it became painfully obvious that the current pattern should be changed for the sake of future extension points.
On Nov 29, 2007 2:54 PM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
