I'd suggest that you prove out that your concept is "better" than the current solution by building out a competing solution and contributing it as an opensource project to let the community decide which solution is the best fit for them.
i'm all for a little competing innovation! =) On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:44 AM, Sergio García <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Well, I appreciate all the comments, but i want to explain things about > how > > we work here. In our vision about how a wicket + spring + hibernate > should > > be, in 99% of cases only services are injected into controller layer. > There > > are no reason to make reusable components that calls a service, because > > that's the model layer, and it's very unusual that you can reuse the > model. > > There are no reason to make reusable jars that have dependencies with > the > > model layer. Also, the services in our common applications would be, at > the > > most, twenty services. Twenty services in a real very big application. > Our > > common application has about ten services. > > > > I respect all your visions about how a right architecture must be, but > our > > vision is different. > > > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Spring-2.5-and-Wicket%2C-our-vision-about-integration-tp16930960p16953853.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] > >
