That's not Wicket's focus. The edge we want to provide with Wicket over
other frameworks, is to have a framework that is easy to use/ understand
and that gives you a clean model to program to. It's not perfect, we're
working on it, but simplicity has to be our main focus. If simplicity
kills functionality, and people have a clear case of where Wicket should
be more flexible, we're more than ready to fix that. But being
'ultra-flexible' will never be our first goal.
So:
* +1 on making validators stateless;
* still thinking about Phil's proposal (will comment on that later)
* +/- 0 for creating an abstract validator that does the conversion for
you before the actual validation
* -1 for everything else that was proposed
Eelco
Making validators more general purpose would make it less clear how/ for
what they should be used.
--------------------------------------------------------------
It comes down to evaluating values :) So I don`t see the harm... and I
think it would be generally be a better way to design an extendable
framework like Wicket. I have never taken a framework as it is.. I
always want to do my thing with it.. if have done it to a lot of
framework of the jdk, if have done it to Spring.. and I`m going to do
it with Wicket.. So give me the tools to do my job.
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: Discover Easy Linux Migration Strategies
from IBM. Find simple to follow Roadmaps, straightforward articles,
informative Webcasts and more! Get everything you need to get up to
speed, fast. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7477&alloc_id=16492&op=click
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
