On 9/24/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Niclas, as you can see, we would be open for it, but not too soon. I
opened up an RFE here
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1564174&group_id=119783&atid=684978
Sure. The reason why we are using Wicket in the first place is that it is "good enough" in terms of classloader control, resource handling and other areas which is required.
So for 2.0, can you guys confirm;
* No caching of resources, classes, classloaders, etc in Wicket itself (or, allowing us to evict those under our control). That is an area that I have not investigated, and could interfere with 'reloadable clients'.
* If we provide you with some Manifest entries, you ship them standard in the various Wicket jars, to make them "bundle conformant" and directly deployable on OSGi platform? I am willing to maintain this, especially now when you are going to Apache ;o)
Cheers
Niclas
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
