A whole story about bladiabla, but what is now the actual problem?? Why do you need transparant resolvers and why dont they work for you ?
On 5/12/08, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > hi martijn, > > > I don't do that. I pose that it is very easy to say that feature X > > must be implemented when you don't have to do anything yourself in > > supporting feature X. > > i don't want a new feature. the point is wicket's implementation of > transparent > resolvers has it's troubles making it hard to use it to implement extension > to > (default) components (due to encapsulation). > > all i ask is to get a workaround until there might be a new implementation > of > how transparent resolvers work. > > > It is a matter of fact: should we support this or not. > > as i said, it's not a question of to support it, it's a matter of 'we can't > fix > it atm, but there's a way we could fix a problem for now'... > > regards, --- jan. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
