Except for maybe adding extra configuration for a test version of an application I can't think why you'd want to extend the module class. That said, it's quite a constraint to impose for the module class doesn't *need* to be final. (And guaranteed someone, somewhere will want to at some point for some reason!)
Maybe consider logging a warning message instead? That would then give more context to the "Service id has already been defined" error message. Steve. On Dec 8, 2007 5:26 PM, Howard Lewis Ship <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Makes me wonder if Tapestry modules should be final? > > > On Dec 8, 2007 9:12 AM, Steve Eynon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > To clear this one up, I was in error. My App Module class extended the > > Component Module class. (Doh!) I now remember doing this to have the > > Jetty Launcher in Eclipse pick up the component module configuration. > > > > During my tour of the tapestry source I came across the > > "tapestry.modules" system parameter, so I can now have the component > > module picked up by both a stand-alone Jetty instance and the Eclipse > > Jetty Launcher. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Steve. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
