My vote's for post 1.2, as I don't think it's critical enough have to delay things for.
(And probably post 1.3, as I'm a bit concerned that 1.3 will be more than just the 1 change & quick-release it was presented as.) /Gwyn On 11/04/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/11/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > May I suggest we delay this request for the next release? No need to quickly > > adjust this /now/ and add another couple of weeks of testing to our already > > overdue 1.2 release? > > > > Apparently the pro's are: probably stateless application possible (no > > guarantee yet?) > > > > But the cons are: > > - api break > > - apparently not a trivial change, more design decisions to be made > > - not tested yet > > - it's a feature, not a bug > > Ok, that was predictable :). So for now, everybody has wait for the > next major release and until then have live with the fact that Wicket > cannot operate without sessions unless a custom session store is used. > > I opened an issue (bug as I do think it's a fix for a faulty API and > not just an enhancement) here: > https://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1468853&group_id=119783&atid=684975 > > Eelco ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid0944&bid$1720&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
