+1 for this change. I agree that wicket's release should not be bound on the javascript libraries release.
Do you think this will go in wicket extensions, or where do you intend to place this code? On 9/15/05, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > All, > > I've just played with the dojo support and found it working pretty good, > *but* ... I had immediately the need to use an other version of the dojo.js > file. > > Now this left me thinking that the libraries of dojo and scriptaculous will > probably have shorter cycles than the wicket core. I therefore propose to > move these two packages with Ajax specific handlers (and later components) > into their own libaries and give them their own release cycles. > Giving these two packages their own project will allow quick turn arounds > and specific components developed for each library. > > Note that the generic Ajax handler and support remain in Wicket core. Just > the specific library support will be extracted. > > May I have your votes please? > > Martijn > ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: Tame your development challenges with Apache's Geronimo App Server. Download it for free - -and be entered to win a 42" plasma tv or your very own Sony(tm)PSP. Click here to play: http://sourceforge.net/geronimo.php _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
