atom feed20 messages in org.apache.wicket.usersRe: encapsulation, extension and tran...
FromSent OnAttachments
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 2:08 am 
Martijn DashorstMay 12, 2008 4:07 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 5:28 am 
Martijn DashorstMay 12, 2008 5:34 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 5:39 am 
Igor VaynbergMay 12, 2008 8:25 am 
Johan CompagnerMay 12, 2008 8:34 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 9:14 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 9:17 am 
Igor VaynbergMay 12, 2008 10:12 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 10:25 am 
Igor VaynbergMay 12, 2008 10:31 am 
Gerolf SeitzMay 12, 2008 3:00 pm 
Johan CompagnerMay 12, 2008 3:19 pm 
jWeekendMay 12, 2008 4:59 pm 
Jonathan LockeMay 12, 2008 6:24 pm 
Jonathan LockeMay 12, 2008 6:36 pm 
Eelco HilleniusMay 12, 2008 6:51 pm 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 9:44 pm 
Jonathan LockeMay 12, 2008 10:52 pm 
Subject:Re: encapsulation, extension and transparent resolvers
From:Martijn Dashorst (mart@gmail.com)
Date:May 12, 2008 5:34:01 am
List:org.apache.wicket.users

On 5/12/08, Jan Kriesten <jan.@renitence.de> wrote:

The 'We wont support this' dogma isn't really proper argumentation.

Are you providing the 24x7 free support then?

that's actually not the point, is it? i'm trying to help out on the irc channel as well as good as i can. so you can't claim that all yourself.

I don't do that. I pose that it is very easy to say that feature X must be implemented when you don't have to do anything yourself in supporting feature X.

just get back to serious discussion and don't hide behind this statement you're repeating over and over.

It is a matter of fact: should we support this or not. Support takes time and effort. Failing to acknowledge that and telling us that valuing our own time and effort is not an argument is a serious disrespect IMO.

as i stated, i really appreciate your work - but that doesn't mean one isn't allowed to formulate (light) criticism.

Criticism is fine, but disregarding a valid argument because you don't have to maintain it yourself is not.

Martijn