* Eelco Hillenius:

> On 7/19/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Why do we need Serializable here?
> I   agree   you   don't  need   it   for   application. However,
> Application's  meta data  reuses the  metadata classes  that are
> used for pages and session,  where meta data typically should be
> serializable.

OK I understand the concern.

> > BTW I  use Application.setMetaData()  to pass Spring  beans to
> > the Page.  Are MetaData suitable for that kind of purpose?
> Theoretically,  you can  use the  meta data  for any  thing your
> want.   *However*, you  typically  would not  need  to use  this
> facility for concrete applications. If you know what application
> you're in, you  can directly use the  concrete application class
> for instance. That would be less  work, more strongly typed, and
> easier to find out what the application class supports.

You're  perfectly  right,  but   the  Application  can  be  either
MyWebApplication  or WicketTester,  so the  Page doesn't  know the
exact type of the Application.

> > And   about   the   Wicket-Spring  extension,   is   there   a
> > documentation available?
> It has  JavaDocs and  an example  project, and  there is  a WIKI
> page: http://www.wicket-wiki.org.uk/wiki/index.php/Spring.

Thanks, that was  exactly what I was looking for.   And you see in
the examples that the following construct is used:


However there  is also a  discussion about Injector, maybe  it's a
better approach  than MetaData, and  no cast is necessary  in this
case apparently.

Thanks for your answers.
     Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka  John Banana Qwerty

Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash
Wicket-user mailing list

Reply via email to