>
> when using Spring you must extends Spring application
You don't need to. You could extend WebApplication and in the init() add :
void init() {
addComponentInstantionListener(new SpringComponentInjector(this));
}
But coming back to your real point: It would be nice if Application and
RequestCycle and such classes would have interfaces. Then you could use the
(dynamic) proxying approach to apply multiple crosscutting concerns (like
security, monitoring etc) without the need for subclassing and such.
Lars
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
>
