Re: Wicket 10 based on jakarta.** APIs ?

2021-06-02 Thread Maxim Solodovnik
I've started this work for our project seems to be doable Maybe you can share what are the benefits? On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 15:15, Martin Tzvetanov Grigorov wrote: > > > On 2021/04/02 11:58:02, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start

Re: @jakarta.inject.Inject + not required

2021-06-02 Thread Emond Papegaaij
CDI uses javax.enterprise.inject.Instance to inject optional beans. I don't particular like this solution, but it works. The downside is that it depends on the CDI API. Best regards, Emond On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 10:41 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:31 AM Sven Meier

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Hi, > I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite > simple. > > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. and a large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. Regards > > Sven > > > On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo

Re: @jakarta.inject.Inject + not required

2021-06-02 Thread Martin Grigorov
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 11:31 AM Sven Meier wrote: > Hi, > > I wasn't aware that Optional actually isn't serializable: > The real problem is that it is `final class`. Even if it was Serializable we would still wrap it in a proxy that looks up the real bean on demand / after deserialization. We

Re: @jakarta.inject.Inject + not required

2021-06-02 Thread Sven Meier
Hi, I wasn't aware that Optional actually isn't serializable: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/24547673/why-java-util-optional-is-not-serializable-how-to-serialize-the-object-with-suc#24564612 "The JSR-335 EG felt fairly strongly that Optional should not be on any more than needed to

Re: Wicket 10 based on jakarta.** APIs ?

2021-06-02 Thread Martin Tzvetanov Grigorov
On 2021/04/02 11:58:02, Martin Grigorov wrote: > Hi, > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on > Wicket 10 ? > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Sven Meier
Hi, I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite simple. Regards Sven On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com>

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Tobias Gierke
I am not sure how to react on this '+1'. Martin Terra, you requested this feature and then never bothered to upgrade to something newer than 1.4. Sorry, but your votes don't count anymore! :-) Martin: I fully agree with you. How this feature was introduced can, at least, be called "weird".

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Martin Grigorov
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:58 AM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > Hi, > > What I mean is to do a table of pros VS cons of dropping this feature. For > instance, I just remember someone did a profiling of his application and > reported that wicket (in his application) was slower after this

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Hi, > > > > > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > > this > > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now > it > > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I > was > > > just wondering if it will be

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Martin Grigorov
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:44 AM Martin Terra < martin.te...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote: > ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reier...@gmail.com) > kirjoitti: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Hi, What I mean is to do a table of pros VS cons of dropping this feature. For instance, I just remember someone did a profiling of his application and reported that wicket (in his application) was slower after this feature was introduced (a pro of removing it, maybe wicket will be faster). All

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Martin Terra
ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reier...@gmail.com) kirjoitti: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > How much work

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > > Removing the component queueing ? > I am not sure. Removing should be

Re: Wicket 10 ideas

2021-06-02 Thread Martin Grigorov
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > How much work do you think this will imply? > Removing the component queueing ? I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. Why do you ask ? > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at