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:
Clint,
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.
However, your argument is sensible.
Ove
-Clint
-Ove
On Aug 17, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Clint Popetz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 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'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'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.
>
> 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't let you have dependencies on non-central-repo artifacts. Is that
reasonable/possible?
>
> Thanks,
> -Clint
>
> --
> Clint Popetz
>
http://42lines.net
> Scalable Web Application Development
> _______________________________________________
> seam-dev mailing list
> seam-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/seam-dev
--
Clint Popetz
http://42lines.net
Scalable Web Application Development