+1
Yeah, let's move the portlet support to the wicket-stuff or some
subproject in apache. I could finally fix the two known bugs, but
since I'm not really using portlet stuff in any real-world
application, the portlet support would still be highly experimental/
incomplete.
Janne
On 18.3.2007, at 2.07, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
+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
>
