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 breakage. 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). Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de 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
