i don't have an opinion yet. i'm just trying to understand the problem.
Gili wrote:
On Sat, 01 Jan 2005 12:35:54 -0800, Jonathan Locke wrote:
i understand the "problem". i just don't think it's worth fixing. in fact, "fixing" it is kindof against wicket philosophy and tends to take a view of "wicket is the world", which it will never be. the wicket philosophy is to let things do what they do well and not try to change them; to delegate responsibility. what we need to do here is allow the container to serve static pages the way it normally does... because that's what it's good at.
Fine, so what is your proposed behavior (please summarize because I've lost track on where we stand)?
Thanks, Gili
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
