Denis Stepanov-2 wrote > > It makes sense to have "private" services, would be nice to have services > which will be only exposed to the services in the current module. >
That's a very good and concise way to describe the idea. Thanks for your support! :) -- View this message in context: http://tapestry.1045711.n5.nabble.com/How-to-define-a-private-service-a-service-only-for-another-service-tp5597443p5600151.html Sent from the Tapestry - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tapestry.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tapestry.apache.org
