Hi, I'm not sure what the context was again. But in general, you can say Wicket is unmanaged because you are in charge of creating your component instances, relations etc. instead of the framework reading it from some configuration file and deciding when and how to do it. The reason why we want Wicket to be an unmanaged framework is simple: we choose programming over configuring (or the cooler but overrated term: declarative programming). The difference is huge, as the moment we would be an unmanaged framework, we would be like Tapestry - which already exists for a couple of years - and you the user would loose a lot of the flexibility and compactness you have with Wicket now.
Eelco On 12/13/05, Laurent PETIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have a question that I never asked before, but as time passes, I > still have the same question in mind, so there I am (hope this is not > a too stupid question) : > > On 12/7/05, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i dont really know if this is a place we want to take wicket because it > > would make it a bit more managed. > > What is so bad with Wicket being a bit, or a lot, .. "managed" ? > > What would this prevent ? ... > > I'm pretty sure you have a clear answer for that, and maybe it should > be clear to me too, so if you have time please tell me, or send me to > internet urls where this has (potentially) been (over ?)debated in the > past ... ? > > > Thanks in advance, > > -- > Laurent > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
