I've rolledback all of my changes as they are not really necessary and are somewhat confusing.
The preferred approach is therefore to use the servlet 2.4 locale-encoding-mapping-list entries in the web.xml and the method covered in Juergen's encodings example for dealing with servlet 2.3.
Perhaps I should RTFM a bit more before making changes in the future!
Regards,
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 11 March 2005 16:20
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Wicket-develop] Character encoding
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 16:22:33 +0100, Christopher Turner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ooops, I didn't see the existing encoding example as it has
> > disappeared from the index page of the examples! Shouldn't the
> > examples index page include all of the examples?
>
> Jon removed some because the examples should be pollished as
> the core itself as many people learn by looking at the
> examples. The examples currently removed need to be reviewed.
> "They should provide a real value to the user."
>
> >
> > Shall I rollback my changes?
>
> Lets try to find what is best in both approaches and merge them.
>
> >
> >
> > One question that this does raise is "What version of the Servlet
> > specification are we targeting for Wicket?" If we are only
> targeting
> > v2.4 then I think the existing approach is fine because it
> allows 2.3
> > support with a bit of effort. If we are also targeting Wicket as
> > supporting Servlet 2.3 and 2.4 then shouldn't the existing encoding
> > stuff be in the Wicket core and not the contrib project?
> >
>
> IMO we should target 2.3 and 2.4 as many containers in
> production are not yet 2.4 compliant.
>
> That is a good question. I guess most Wicket applications
> will end up with all 3 jars (core, extension and contrib) as
> in my understanding core really contains only what is
> absolutely necessary. Extension contains polished extensions
> and contrib extensions which people are likely to use. Though
> I understand these separation is only very vague and there
> will always be discussions. Having said that, I'd probably
> would move it into extension. Not the core because with 2.4
> you won't need it anymore.
>
> > Sorry for the confusion!
> No problem
>
> Juergen
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
> Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from
> real users.
> Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
> http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
> _______________________________________________
> Wicket-develop mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
>
>
