+1 Eelco
On 3/17/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 until we have a core committer who is actually using this stuff for real projects its pointless to have it in core. it stagnates and breaks. i dont think we should have something that is potentially broken/incomplete in our releases -igor On 3/17/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The portlets integration is not something that is mainained very well, > at least I know nothing about it, and our ipmc members that do know > something about portlets are too busy with other things. > > I tried to integrate the portlet examples into our main examples but > that didn't work. I know there are several people using the portlet > integration on the user list (we get enough issues and questions about > it), so discontinuing portlet support is not a popular option. And it > would cost us a feature checkmark. > > I think that it is probably wise to move the portlet support out of > core to wicket-stuff where we can grant our users the rights to > maintain the support. If they find the time and make it work, the > better for them. If they make a consistent effort to maintain it, we > could always opt to have the portlets return to mammie. > > What do you think? > > Martijn > > -- > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! > http://wicketframework.org >
