Yeah, I must say im looking forward to getting Wicket-1327 a reality too..
Wayne Pope wrote:
Hi,
Francisco and I here where discussing whether we could figure a way of
having some form of static/compile time checking on our
(Compound)PropertyModels, as I'm a bit concerned long term about some nasty
runtime bugs that might slip through the testing coverage. Francisco found
this thread - I'm wondering what the status is? I had a look at:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1327
and there doesn't look like any activity since Feb. Anyone been using this
or come up with a different solution?
Ideally I think it would be just great if we had an eclipse plugin that
could just check for this (a bit like checkstyle or something) but a runtime
solution as proposed above seems really smart as well. However I'd rather
keep is 100% java (ie not cglib) if possible.
Thanks for any update if anyone knows anything!
Wayne
Johan Compagner wrote:
no i really dont like that
then everywhere there code they need to do that, that is not an option.
and they have to program themselfs agains the proxy api. I dont want that
developers also have the learn/do that
This is something commons-proxy needs to do
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Couldn't you also do:
ProxyFactory pf = ...;
new SharedPropertyModel<Customer>(pf, customer);
So, the client tells you what proxy factory implementation to use.
On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I see the JIRA, I'll go ahead and start the discussion on the dev list.
On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/8/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > for wicket this is a feature it really should have
> > now it defeats the purpose i have to make a decission in wicket
which
> > factory i use
> > Then i can just as well directly compile against cglib.
> > I cant make the api that way that the developer has to give that
factory to
> > use. That would be completely horrible,
> >
>
>
> You could always implement your own brand of discovery for your
> project (perhaps by using the service discovery feature built into
the
> jdk).
>
> I like the idea of splitting it (and doing it the slf4j way rather
> than the JCL way). I have actually suggested that we start an
> exploratory branch of JCL to make it work more like slf4j (we've
been
> talking about this since 2005). Anyway, if you file a JIRA issue,
> I'll make sure we have a discussion with the other devs. For your
> immediate purposes, commons-discovery is available also.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
-Wicket for love
Nino Martinez Wael
Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
http://www.jayway.dk
+45 2936 7684
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
