You are correct in saying this may cause problems. So it is up to the developers of the extensions to provide workarounds for this. For instance wasp and swarm also provide an interface you can implement on top of the other application you must extend. And if i recall correctly an application can be springified using a simple annotation or 1 line of code added to your application (don't ask me how, i just remember hearing or reading about it somewhere, maybe one of the other devs knows).
I know this is not always an ideal situation, for instance with the interfaces you end up copy pasting a lot of code, So if you have a better suggestion.... Maurice On Fri, Apr 11, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Martijn Lindhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't exactly where I saw it also, but James has a point. I like to see > the things also more pluggable. I don't know if Wicket needs to be modified > or if 'wicket-extenders' should take another approach, but I find myself to > many times having to extend the same thing (my Application class) from two > different supertypes, e.g. (and this is maybe not a correct example, but > there are more) when using Spring you must extends Spring application, and > when using wicket-auth-roles, you need to extend > AuthenticatedWebApplication. Since Java doesn't support multiple inheritance > this is a problem. > > How should we fix this? > > 2008/4/11, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > Wasp requires a custom WebSession, not a custom WebRequest, to handle > > some trivial authentication stuff. > > > > > > Maurice > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 11:56 PM, James Carman > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I've never really cared for this whole idea of requiring subclassing > > > to get your work done. Is there no way to make things more pluggable? > > > Perhaps use the decorator design pattern? > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Martijn Lindhout > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If I remember well, Wasp/Swarm needs its own WebRequest subclass? > > > > > > > > 2008/4/10, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:34 PM, Martijn Lindhout > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > My two questions: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1. is this necessary / bad? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > no, it just adds some extra capability to the request > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. what if I need different types of requests in my > > application? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > i doubt you will. what usecases do you have? usecases for > > subclassing > > > > > request/response are few and far in between. > > > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanx, > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Martijn Lindhout > > > > > > JointEffort IT Services > > > > > > http://www.jointeffort.nl > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > +31 (0)6 18 47 25 29 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > Martijn Lindhout > > > > JointEffort IT Services > > > > http://www.jointeffort.nl > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > +31 (0)6 18 47 25 29 > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > 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] > > > > > > > -- > Martijn Lindhout > JointEffort IT Services > http://www.jointeffort.nl > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > +31 (0)6 18 47 25 29 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
