Hi,
I seem to agree with Huy since not all developers are already too
anxious to start using annotations or jdk1.5 for that matter, although
it would be a good solution for say wicket 2.0.
As for the XML, wouldn't that be like tapestry'ing wicket? I keep to my
original though of having something like a global variable in the
application class.
Koen
Huy Do wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
Sorry guys, but I wasn't able to reserve enough free time to do an
irc chat.
I have been thinking about Spring integration a bit more though, and
the only thing I can think of to make it really nice is to use
(runtime) annotations. I was thinking about letting Wicket (actually
a few utility classes that come in a seperate package, e.g
wicket-extensions-spring) do the wiring using spring like:
class MyForm extends Form {
@Dependency("myDaoName")
private MyDAO foo;
etc...
}
why introduce something new if you are integrating an existing
technology ? Wouldn't it make sense that if you are integrating
spring, you would use whatever spring used for configuration ? I would
assume that you want spring integration to attract existing spring
users or potential spring users. If that is the case, using what
spring users are use to i.e xml configuration (although I hate xml
just as much as others on this list) would make much more sense
because they wouldn't need to learn or be familiar with another method
regardless of how simple it appears to be (for simple cases at least).
Its a question of "I already" know spring, so can bring all that
knowledge (baggage) to wicket without having to climb another hill (in
terms of spring).
I know, it will take a while before JDK1.5 will be available for the
large public, but this is something I would like to support, while I
definitively don't want to go the xml route. The advantage of trying
to implement something like this, is that we can learn what parts of
the Wicket API aren't flexible enough yet to support this. And once
that is clear and fixed, it opens the way for alternative
implementations if people want that.
Quite dangerous to force jdk 1.5 on everyone who wants to use spring.
Spring supports 1.3 for a reason.
What do you think?
Eelco
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
We could even have an online conference (IRC) with the people who
are interested/ want to contribute to this topic. We (core devs)
sometimes work like that, and I find it really boosting to
brainstorm like that and write some code right away. Interested?
This weekend?
Eelco
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
& QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement *
http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle
Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing
& QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO
September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices
Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA
Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
