On Aug 22, 2011, at 4:53 PM, Pete Muir wrote:
On 17 Aug 2011, at 21:59, Ove Ranheim wrote:
> On Aug 17, 2011, at 10:21 PM, Clint Popetz wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Ove Ranheim <oranheim(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> What is it specifically that you will benefit from taking this into Wicket? What
plans do you have and what would be to the better?
>> Please enlighten me, but what's the problem for "the resource you're
trying to convince" of not contributing under the Seam umbrella. Why is it a problem
for the wicket team to stay in sync with releases? Isn't it approx a year between
every Wicket release?
>> The idea is that if wicket 1.x is released, wicket-cdi 1.x will be released
simultaneously. In addition, as wicket evolves, the person most familiar with its
evolution (Igor) will have responsibility for keeping the integration current. Finally,
wicket already supports other dependency injection frameworks (spring, juice) as wicket
modules, so it makes sense for the cdi module to live alongside those, and will give cdi
more exposure for those looking to use dependency injection in wicket.
> There's a danger with two many "currents" and no well architected
umbrella. I'd rather see many more frameworks being integrated on top of Solder.
It's a concern that reusability will suffer due different strategies of
implementation. What Solder, Faces, Servlet and more, really does well. Is to make a
unified glue layer to fully integrate with different technologies.
> I'm not too confident moving Wicket out in it's own Wicket CDI module. IMHO,
it'll be an Igor vs a whole Seam Community empowerment where talking about here. Has
Igor fully evaluated the Seam Solder eco-system? Will you make a new Wicket CDI Int,
Servlet, Catch module too. Eventually, how well will a mixed platform play together in the
future!? Is Wicket strategy to stay Wicket and no other than Wicket should get in.
I think you are making a lot of (negative) assumptions about the way this will work out.
Clint is a long time contributor to Seam and Weld, and Igor has previously contributed to
Weld. So I think we can have complete faith that the work they do will reuse what makes
sense from Seam, and play nicely with the Seam ecosystem. I don't think Wicket is
proposing to create an entire new set of CDI plugins, and I can't really read that
into what Clint says.
First of all, my apologies to Clint and Igor and I see that my statement was to some
extent negative. It was not my intention to be offensive though. So Clint and Igor, sorry
about that. From my perspective I shared an opinion where further UI frameworks should
become part of Seam over time, so moving the CDI extension out means one less extension in
the Seam eco-system. I contributed the mock support in Seam Wicket and I hope in time I
will have more time to contribute further. I really endorse CDI technologies and it's
been a fantastic to follow Seam Solder (also Weld Extensions) the past year. I do
recognize it's generally a good thing to see higher adaption of CDI and off course
Wicket CDI module to be further developed and maintained, even if that means outside of
There are a lot of benefits to a relevant technology owning the CDI
Firstly, expose. On the one hand, by placing it in Seam, we limit it's perceived
applicability to "Seam" projects, and we don't encourage the wider Wicket
community to try out CDI. OTOH if it lives in Wicket, we encourage that whole community to
try out CDI, and perhaps take a look at Seam.
Secondly, release cycles. CDI is a backwards compatible, specified, API, whilst Wicket in
this case is more flexible. Therefore taking CDI as the stable point makes a lot of sense.
We tried the approach you suggest in Seam 2.x and it quickly becomes unmanageable and
limits the size of the ecosystem. This was part of the motivation for developing CDI.
Thirdly, expertise. CDI is well documented and specified (not to say Wicket isn't,
but if we generalize these arguments, this does often hold) and has a growing community of
people who are expert at integration techniques, and to reaching out to third parties and
helping them integrate with CDI. Having the Wicket team own the integration makes a lot of
sense here too.
Finally, that there is actually nothing to stop the Wicket team making an official CDI
integration without the Seam communities involvment at all. Much better to engage than
There are the disadvantages you mention, however I believe they are small, and can be
mitigated almost entirely by Seam documenting third party integrations.
HTH understand the reasoning behind the Seam/JBoss philosophy here that it's better
that the integration with CDI lives outside Seam where possible.
I understand and it would be good to understand the demarcation between what should be a
Seam project/module and what's outside scope, hence be a CDI extension, even outside
Seam. I'm a bit confused by what's within the boundaries of Seam. But that might
just be me.
Nevertheless, I don't mean to be negative and my apologies for making my initial