I agree and I'm not 100% sure the 2.0 approach on MarkupFragments is realy the right one.
Juergen On 4/14/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
markupfragment is a pretty extensive refactor, and i dont think it will be a straight backport. i think best is to leave it for 1.4 -igor On 4/14/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i have one more i think: > MarkupFragment > > look at the changes that are in 2.0 compared to 1.3 > and if you now look at the MarkupComponentBorder you see that there is a > lot > of code commented out so that it compiles > But i don't know that code to much to know what we want. Should i rewrite > the MarkupComponentBorder or are we backporting > the MarkupFragment? Juergen or Igor do know this the best i take? > > johan > > > On 4/13/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I suggest waiting a bit longer for the package rename to settle. > > > > Only a couple more things to go at > > > > > http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Backporting+features+from+trunk > > > > If everyone helps a bit this week (I just did the tree switch), we can > > be done by the end of this weekend. I don't know if there are any > > pressing issues in JIRA, but we're getting real close to a proper 1.3 > > release with all the back ports. > > > > Eelco > > >
