You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com> on 2017/10/07 14:02:17 UTC
WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Hi,
WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for three
subprojects:
- wicket-scala
- inmethod-grid
- wicketstuff-portlet-examples
I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
migrated to WicketStuff.
What do you think?
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
+1
Thanks for checking!
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 9:02 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for three
> subprojects:
>
> - wicket-scala
>
> - inmethod-grid
>
> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>
> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have migrated
> to WicketStuff.
>
> What do you think?
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
All 3 modules are updated
Would appreciate if you can review the changes :)
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:37 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Could you please review my commit for inmethod grid: [1]
>
> I don't really like such implementation (converters are being saved 2
> times in instances, and might be lost in case it was badly overridden) but
> I see no other way how this can be done :(
>
> Thanks in advance!
>
> [1] https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/commit/
> 1b4b75fcba4e53093f684c780c42e660494ade3a#diff-
> d871ebf4919c6d117d0121591f27c229R97
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I thought build failed is expected :))
>> Will try to remove this dependency to wicket-datetime, and perform
>> migration :)
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I mean weird :-D
>>>
>>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <
>>> solomax666@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> build is successful ....
>>> >> That's weird ...
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Why it's wired :) ? Before the merge I switched the wicket-datetime
>>> > dependency to the namesake module we have migrated to WicketStuff.
>>> >
>>> > will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
>>> >>
>>> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <
>>> solomax666@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > WICKET-6105 was merged :))
>>> >> > I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> That's a plan!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Sven
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will
>>> merge
>>> >> >>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will
>>> have all
>>> >> >>> the
>>> >> >>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> This make sense :)
>>> >> >>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>> Hi,
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to
>>> use
>>> >> the
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>> new
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
>>> >> >>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever,
>>> do we?
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> Regards
>>> >> >>>>> Sven
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> Hi,
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime'
>>> for
>>> >> >>>>>> three
>>> >> >>>>>> subprojects:
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> - wicket-scala
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> - inmethod-grid
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we
>>> have
>>> >> >>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> What do you think?
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> --
>>> >> >>>> WBR
>>> >> >>>> Maxim aka solomax
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > --
>>> >> > WBR
>>> >> > Maxim aka solomax
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> WBR
>>> >> Maxim aka solomax
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> WBR
>> Maxim aka solomax
>>
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
Could you please review my commit for inmethod grid: [1]
I don't really like such implementation (converters are being saved 2 times
in instances, and might be lost in case it was badly overridden) but I see
no other way how this can be done :(
Thanks in advance!
[1]
https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/commit/1b4b75fcba4e53093f684c780c42e660494ade3a#diff-d871ebf4919c6d117d0121591f27c229R97
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:36 PM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I thought build failed is expected :))
> Will try to remove this dependency to wicket-datetime, and perform
> migration :)
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I mean weird :-D
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> build is successful ....
>> >> That's weird ...
>> >>
>> >
>> > Why it's wired :) ? Before the merge I switched the wicket-datetime
>> > dependency to the namesake module we have migrated to WicketStuff.
>> >
>> > will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <
>> solomax666@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > WICKET-6105 was merged :))
>> >> > I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> That's a plan!
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Sven
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will
>> merge
>> >> >>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have
>> all
>> >> >>> the
>> >> >>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> This make sense :)
>> >> >>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>
>> wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> Hi,
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to
>> use
>> >> the
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>> new
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
>> >> >>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do
>> we?
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Regards
>> >> >>>>> Sven
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime'
>> for
>> >> >>>>>> three
>> >> >>>>>> subprojects:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> - wicket-scala
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> - inmethod-grid
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we
>> have
>> >> >>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> What do you think?
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> --
>> >> >>>> WBR
>> >> >>>> Maxim aka solomax
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > WBR
>> >> > Maxim aka solomax
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> WBR
>> >> Maxim aka solomax
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
I thought build failed is expected :))
Will try to remove this dependency to wicket-datetime, and perform
migration :)
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I mean weird :-D
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> build is successful ....
> >> That's weird ...
> >>
> >
> > Why it's wired :) ? Before the merge I switched the wicket-datetime
> > dependency to the namesake module we have migrated to WicketStuff.
> >
> > will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <solomax666@gmail.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > WICKET-6105 was merged :))
> >> > I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
> >> >
> >> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> That's a plan!
> >> >>
> >> >> Sven
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will
> merge
> >> >>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have
> all
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> This make sense :)
> >> >>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>
> wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to
> use
> >> the
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>> new
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
> >> >>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do
> we?
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Regards
> >> >>>>> Sven
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
> >> >>>>>
> >> >>>>>> Hi,
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime'
> for
> >> >>>>>> three
> >> >>>>>> subprojects:
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - wicket-scala
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - inmethod-grid
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we
> have
> >> >>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>> What do you think?
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>> --
> >> >>>> WBR
> >> >>>> Maxim aka solomax
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > --
> >> > WBR
> >> > Maxim aka solomax
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> WBR
> >> Maxim aka solomax
> >>
> >
> >
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>.
I mean weird :-D
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> build is successful ....
>> That's weird ...
>>
>
> Why it's wired :) ? Before the merge I switched the wicket-datetime
> dependency to the namesake module we have migrated to WicketStuff.
>
> will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > WICKET-6105 was merged :))
>> > I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
>> >
>> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's a plan!
>> >>
>> >> Sven
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>> >>
>> >>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge
>> >>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all
>> >>> the
>> >>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> This make sense :)
>> >>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use
>> the
>> >>>>>
>> >>>> new
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
>> >>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Regards
>> >>>>> Sven
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> Hi,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for
>> >>>>>> three
>> >>>>>> subprojects:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> - wicket-scala
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> - inmethod-grid
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
>> >>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> What do you think?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> --
>> >>>> WBR
>> >>>> Maxim aka solomax
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > WBR
>> > Maxim aka solomax
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> WBR
>> Maxim aka solomax
>>
>
>
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 4:44 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> build is successful ....
> That's weird ...
>
Why it's wired :) ? Before the merge I switched the wicket-datetime
dependency to the namesake module we have migrated to WicketStuff.
will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > WICKET-6105 was merged :))
> > I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >
> >> That's a plan!
> >>
> >> Sven
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
> >>
> >>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge
> >>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all
> >>> the
> >>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
> >>>
> >>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> This make sense :)
> >>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use
> the
> >>>>>
> >>>> new
> >>>>
> >>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
> >>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Regards
> >>>>> Sven
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for
> >>>>>> three
> >>>>>> subprojects:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - wicket-scala
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - inmethod-grid
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
> >>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> WBR
> >>>> Maxim aka solomax
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > WBR
> > Maxim aka solomax
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
I have updated wicketstuff-portlet-examples so now it is
1) Uses examples from latest wicket
2) jetty:run works without errors
BUT :))
examples are really weird, jetty only displays directory listing :( can
some-one double check this?
+ it seems like this module has copy of wicket-examples module, which is
really weird ....
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> build is successful ....
> That's weird ...
> will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
>
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> WICKET-6105 was merged :))
>> I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
>>
>> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> That's a plan!
>>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>>
>>>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge
>>>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all
>>>> the
>>>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
>>>>
>>>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This make sense :)
>>>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>
>>>>> new
>>>>>
>>>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
>>>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for
>>>>>>> three
>>>>>>> subprojects:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - wicket-scala
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - inmethod-grid
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
>>>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> WBR
>>>>> Maxim aka solomax
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> WBR
>> Maxim aka solomax
>>
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
build is successful ....
That's weird ...
will try to manually update the dependencies for one of the modules
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> WICKET-6105 was merged :))
> I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
>
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
>> That's a plan!
>>
>> Sven
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>
>>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge
>>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all
>>> the
>>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
>>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> This make sense :)
>>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use the
>>>>>
>>>> new
>>>>
>>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
>>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Sven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for
>>>>>> three
>>>>>> subprojects:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - wicket-scala
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - inmethod-grid
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
>>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> WBR
>>>> Maxim aka solomax
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
WICKET-6105 was merged :))
I'm checking wicketstuff build :)
On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 12:05 AM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> That's a plan!
>
> Sven
>
>
>
> Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>
>> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge
>> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all the
>> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
>>
>> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This make sense :)
>>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use the
>>>>
>>> new
>>>
>>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
>>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Sven
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for
>>>>> three
>>>>> subprojects:
>>>>>
>>>>> - wicket-scala
>>>>>
>>>>> - inmethod-grid
>>>>>
>>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
>>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> WBR
>>> Maxim aka solomax
>>>
>>>
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>.
That's a plan!
Sven
Am 07.10.2017 um 18:16 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
> Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge
> (hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all the
> time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
>
> On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This make sense :)
>> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use the
>> new
>>> classes in wicket-extensions.
>>> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for three
>>>> subprojects:
>>>>
>>>> - wicket-scala
>>>>
>>>> - inmethod-grid
>>>>
>>>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>>>>
>>>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
>>>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> WBR
>> Maxim aka solomax
>>
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>.
Sure we should! But I'd like not to break the build when we will merge
(hopefully soon) WICKET-6105. After we have merged it we will have all the
time to migrate the code to the new extensions module.
On Oct 7, 2017 5:32 PM, "Maxim Solodovnik" <so...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This make sense :)
> I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
>
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use the
> new
> > classes in wicket-extensions.
> > We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
> >
> > Regards
> > Sven
> >
> >
> >
> > Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for three
> >> subprojects:
> >>
> >> - wicket-scala
> >>
> >> - inmethod-grid
> >>
> >> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
> >>
> >> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
> >> migrated to WicketStuff.
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WBR
> Maxim aka solomax
>
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
This make sense :)
I'll try to find some time and check some of these modules
On Sat, Oct 7, 2017 at 10:10 PM, Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use the new
> classes in wicket-extensions.
> We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
>
> Regards
> Sven
>
>
>
> Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for three
>> subprojects:
>>
>> - wicket-scala
>>
>> - inmethod-grid
>>
>> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>>
>> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
>> migrated to WicketStuff.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>
--
WBR
Maxim aka solomax
Re: WICKET-6105 and WicketStuff
Posted by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>.
Hi,
IMHO we should set a good example by migrating these modules to use the
new classes in wicket-extensions.
We don't want to provide support for wicket-datetime forever, do we?
Regards
Sven
Am 07.10.2017 um 16:02 schrieb Andrea Del Bene:
> Hi,
>
> WicketStuff is currently depending on Wicket 'wicket-datetime' for
> three subprojects:
>
> - wicket-scala
>
> - inmethod-grid
>
> - wicketstuff-portlet-examples
>
> I think we should replace it with the corresponding module we have
> migrated to WicketStuff.
>
> What do you think?
>