> Though opportunity for annotations may not > translate as well to Wicket, the promise of reduced effort is, at > least to me, too attractive to dismiss offhand.
Good thing is that we don't have to dismiss anything at this stage. What we (Wicket team) are defending is that we don't think having those annotations are a good default for a number of reasons. But the good news is that it is quite easy to implement yourself. Or if you feel strong about it and would like to pull an initiative, we'd be happy to help start a project up at wicket-stuff and let you handle it. That way more people that feel the same way about it may enjoy those fruits of labour, and you never know, if it really gets popular, it might 'graduate' to wicket-extensions and/or the core project like happened to the repeater packages. For the record, we're certainly not against any use of annotations. For instance, wicket-auth-roles and wicket-spring depend on annotations. And they work nicely imo. Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
