On Jul 25, 2008, at 3:20 , Eelco Hillenius wrote:
That can be a pain sometimes, or at least something to get used to. But that's Wicket's price for the stateful programming model it provides.
Thanks Eelco :-) this is a good conclusion of the point (at least for me). As I said, I'll keep on using Wicket, because overall it's a lot better than others. But I'd like a "stateless" Wicket (or an option to become stateless). To be precise: I'm not asking for it, I understand statefulness is one of the fundamental architectural choices of the platform, so I think that a RFE here would be out of scope. But I'd like to know how many of the Wicket users would appreciate that.
-- Fabrizio Giudici, Ph.D. - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/blog [EMAIL PROTECTED] - mobile: +39 348.150.6941 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
