On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 08:53, Clint Popetz <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:clint@42lines.net">clint@42lines.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">

Hi,<div><br></div><div>I have a proposal from one of the wicket committers (Igor Vaynberg, who is also one of my employees) to transition seam-wicket to become a wicket module that integrates wicket with weld, so that it&#39;s supported by the wicket team.  This is a net win, in my opinion, because (a) the only code in seam wicket is really just code to configure wicket&#39;s request cycle to start/stop conversations and perform injection and has no other seam dependencies, (b) this allows the release to be correctly synced to the wicket releases, which we currently lag and are thus not compatible with, and (c) he has more time to maintain this than I do, and would do a better job of it.</div>



<div><br></div><div>Is this acceptable to the seam team?  The only thing I really need is for the weld 1.1.1 artifacts to be in the central m2 repo, because wicket is published there and the central repo doesn&#39;t let you have dependencies on non-central-repo artifacts.  Is that reasonable/possible?</div>



<div><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>In general, I like the prospect of the Wicket integration being supported by the Wicket team. That&#39;s definitely a step forward.</div><div><br></div><div>However, I think integrating directly with &quot;weld&quot; is a step backwards (at least by putting weld in the name, it throws in the towel). The recommended approach for CDI support is to integrate with the CDI APIs and use SPIs to wrap integrations that are dependent on the implementation. From my understanding, those SPIs will likely go away anyway in CDI 1.1 once the standalone bootstrap API is in place.</div>

<div><br></div><div>In summary, +1 for the module to be supported by the Wicket team, -1 for using &quot;weld&quot; in the name (and throwing in the towel on CDI portability).</div><div><br></div><div>I would still like for the Wicket integration to feel part of the Seam community. We have other CDI integrations that follow this model where they are bundled w/ Seam and used in Seam examples, but maintained on the side of the integrated technology.</div>

<div><br></div><div>-Dan</div><div> </div></div>-- <br><div>Dan Allen</div>Principal Software Engineer, Red Hat | Author of Seam in Action<br>Registered Linux User #231597<br><br><div><a href="http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about" target="_blank">http://www.google.com/profiles/dan.j.allen#about</a><br>

<a href="http://mojavelinux.com" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com</a><br><a href="http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction" target="_blank">http://mojavelinux.com/seaminaction</a><br></div><br>