Torsten Curdt wrote:
> On 08.03.2008, at 15:25, James Carman wrote:
>
>> On 3/8/08, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 08.03.2008, at 13:44, James Carman wrote:
>>>
All,
The wicket folks are investigating using Commons Proxy and they
don't want to have to d
On 3/8/08, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, one could just try and see what classes are available in the
> classpath. This could be easily be done in a wrapper class as you
> suggested.
So, what do you think we should do about PROXY-11?
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/PROXY
On 08.03.2008, at 15:25, James Carman wrote:
On 3/8/08, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 08.03.2008, at 13:44, James Carman wrote:
All,
The wicket folks are investigating using Commons Proxy and they
don't
want to have to decide which implementation (jdk, cglib,
javassist)
On 3/8/08, Torsten Curdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 08.03.2008, at 13:44, James Carman wrote:
>
> > All,
> >
> > The wicket folks are investigating using Commons Proxy and they don't
> > want to have to decide which implementation (jdk, cglib, javassist) to
> > use themselves. They wo
On 08.03.2008, at 13:44, James Carman wrote:
All,
The wicket folks are investigating using Commons Proxy and they don't
want to have to decide which implementation (jdk, cglib, javassist) to
use themselves. They would like us to split up Commons Proxy into 3
jars, commons-proxy, commons-proxy
All,
The wicket folks are investigating using Commons Proxy and they don't
want to have to decide which implementation (jdk, cglib, javassist) to
use themselves. They would like us to split up Commons Proxy into 3
jars, commons-proxy, commons-proxy-cglib, commons-proxy-javassist.
Any thoughts?
J
