On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:04:44 +0200
Martin Makundi <martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:

> Igor explained that "# Components can be queued to any container, and
> can only be added to the hierarchy that stems from that container,
> thereby solving the security requirement"
> https://github.com/ivaynberg/wicket/tree/component-queuing

Having read the readme there, this is starting to finally make some
sense. This proposed solution might actually work without too much

I still don't see the necessity for this change, but I'm willing to
change my -1 to a -0.5.

I'll go for a -0 if it can be shown that the impact of this on the rest
of Wicket is minimal (i.e., it needs few code changes and doesn't break
any assumptions in framework or user code, for example about when
exactly the component tree is available).


PS: I think much of this controversy could have been streamlined by
pointing to a concept-complete implementation or at least making a
properly thought-out suggestion, instead of all the name-calling that
went on. (Almost) No offense taken, just a suggestion for the future.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

Reply via email to