For those unfamiliar with the term "mofo", it means something *really* bad, and not wished upon anyone.
Martijn On 2/14/08, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > In our apps we always wrap our domain objects in models, not have them > implement IModel. > There is only 1 exception to this rule and that is because that > particular object is not stored in the db but is initialized with > loads of other objects. It turned out to be one very complex mofo not > something i would recommend. > > Maurice > > On Feb 13, 2008 7:30 PM, mfs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Guys, > > > > I would want to know if using your business/domain objects as wicket models > > would be a good idea ? > > > > i remember in an earlier thread i was suggested not to use business-objects > > as wicket models, but it would want to hear more opinions.. > > > > Thanks in advance.. > > -- > > View this message in context: > > http://www.nabble.com/Business-Domain-objects-used-as-wicket-model-object---opinions-please-tp15462661p15462661.html > > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.1 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.1 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
