Indeed, not all Wicket web-request are/ will be servlet based. We need a different structure for portlet requests.
Eelco On 8/30/05, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Eelco can explain it better i think but this is a refactor for portlets > support. > And if you want to really slim wicket you could build youre own webserver > (which all embedded devices do) and use wicket on those :) > > johan > > > Gili wrote: > > > > Does it really make sense for one to getWebRequest() and get back > > a WebRequest instead of a ServletWebRequest? I mean, aren't all Wicket > > web-requests servlet-based? I just hate explicitly casting to a > > subclass because who knows if it'll get changed in the future (like it > > just did). We should avoid having to do this kind of explicit casting > > if possible... > > > > Gili > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > 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
