On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 02:21:21PM +0100, Tomasz Lipski wrote: > In my personal opinion, Weblocks would benefit greatly and became even > easier to support and maintain only if it would have been split into some > smaller components, for example: > - weblocks-core - this is where weblocks really shines for me: integration > with hunchentoot, session support, actions and continuations, dependencies > - weblocks-components - simple HTML widgets, which can slowly grow into > feature set provided for example by Vaadin (see > http://demo.vaadin.com/sampler) > - weblocks-scaffold - scaffolding features > - weblocks-persistence-clsql - integration with clsql > - weblocks-persistence-... - integration with other persistence providers > (e.g. mongoDB)
I agree that such an approach would be very beneficial. I'd like to see it put into place myself. Leslie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "weblocks" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/weblocks?hl=en.
