remove javax.servlet from wicket-core

[Michael Mosmann <mi...@mosmann.de>]

Hi,

it may sound like a crazy idea, but sometimes a good idea started as a 
crazy one: I want to remove javax.servlet from wicket-core. Why? Here 
are some thoughts:
- run a wicket application on a netty/vert.x/what-ever stack
- make test easier (BaseWicketTester is not as clear as it should be)
- maybe it's easier to implement atmosphere or something like this 
without this javax.servlet rabbit hole
- your ideas

The last days i did some code changes ( 
https://github.com/michaelmosmann/wicket/tree/Refactor-ServletAbstraction) 
... with limited success. Removing javax.servlet from core is possible 
as far as we ignore something like spring. But that's not an option...

What i want to know: Is there any chance, that this can succeed? This 
will change wicket in many places, and i understand, that nobody will 
accept this as an wicket 6.x.y "improvment". Maybe this is the wrong 
direction, maybe the right thing to early, not the best thing we could 
do now...

Maybe i am the crazy one with obviously to much time for crazy ideas...

Michael

Re: remove javax.servlet from wicket-core

[Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>]

I also tried once to run Wicket on Netty and started making abstractions
for all Servlet APIs.
But I dropped it exactly for the reason tetsuo noted - too big API breaks.

WicketFilter is a javax.servlet.Filter, so it is normal to be tied to
Servlet APIs. Netty/Vert.x/... wont be able to use it anyway. They will
have they own entry point. They have to create their own Response/Request
impls...

Some Wicket components use some javax.servlet.** classes directly, but this
is something internal and wont change Wicket APIs.

I'm going to fork this repo...



On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:40 AM, tetsuo <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Isolating Servlet dependencies could potentially ease portlet support, too.
>
> It won't be an easy task, though. Some of the main classes of the
> framework, like WicketFilter, are deeply coupled to the Servlet API.
>
> But I'm not sure if the benefits out-weight the cost of doing the changes
> and probably breaking (once more) compatibility with older versions.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Michael Mosmann <mi...@mosmann.de>
> wrote:
>
> > What i want to know: Is there any chance, that this can succeed? This
> will
> > change wicket in many places, and i understand, that nobody will accept
> > this as an wicket 6.x.y "improvment". Maybe this is the wrong direction,
> > maybe the right thing to early, not the best thing we could do now...
> >
>



-- 
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com <http://jweekend.com/>

Re: remove javax.servlet from wicket-core

[tetsuo <ro...@gmail.com>]

Isolating Servlet dependencies could potentially ease portlet support, too.

It won't be an easy task, though. Some of the main classes of the
framework, like WicketFilter, are deeply coupled to the Servlet API.

But I'm not sure if the benefits out-weight the cost of doing the changes
and probably breaking (once more) compatibility with older versions.


On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Michael Mosmann <mi...@mosmann.de> wrote:

> What i want to know: Is there any chance, that this can succeed? This will
> change wicket in many places, and i understand, that nobody will accept
> this as an wicket 6.x.y "improvment". Maybe this is the wrong direction,
> maybe the right thing to early, not the best thing we could do now...
>