yeah, we never intended for base class inheritance to be our design here. it just ended up that way because we ran out of time and it served as an example people could cut and paste from...
Erik van Oosten wrote: > > Hi Igor, Jonathan, > > Good idea, I have never liked the way I had to inherit from the > application base classes. > > From a users point of view, I agree with Jonathan on the config thing, > I'd rather have one line of code somewhere (on a predictable place, e.g. > application#init). This also makes it immediately clear when it does not > work: you get a classnotfoundexception. When it is implicit you can > search for hours before you realize that a jar is missing. Especially > when you are talking about annotations. > > Regards, > Erik. > > > Jonathan Locke wrote: >> I like the idea of snap-in modules of some sort, but I don't completely >> understand what you're talking about here and I'm not sure I agree with >> what >> all of what I do get..... >> > > -- > Erik van Oosten > http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/ > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/wicket-modules-tf3250868.html#a9045750 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
