Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

The vote is closed with: 1x Yes, remove IDetachable from IModel 7x No, keep IModel detachable So we can conclude that IModel will remain detachable. Best regards, Emond On maandag 3 april 2017 09:38:03 CEST Emond Papegaaij wrote: > Something went wrong sending this mail. I did write some more,

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

On dinsdag 4 april 2017 00:24:56 CEST Pedro Santos wrote: > > TL;DR Vote at the bottom > > What does it mean? That your email can be skipped to the voting part or > that I was prolix in my last email? I suspected the discussing was becoming is a bit lengthy for everyone to follow. So to make

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

[X] No, keep IModel detachable. .. i did once a refactoring to build an IReadonlyModel,and failed. I failed because of the limited feature set of the java language. So you will end up with some kind of compromise,which is not near a perfect solution. Maybe there is a much better way to

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

Hi Emond, > TL;DR Vote at the bottom What does it mean? That your email can be skipped to the voting part or that I was prolix in my last email? > I think we are not going to agree on this proposal. No problem. Having different opinions being discussed is just a sign of a healthy project.

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

While I appreciate the effort in questioning our fundamentals and trying to improve even the oldest parts of our API, I don't think that the detach method is semantically wrong for models. Semantics are defined by what we say the semantics are. In a request/response oriented environment a detach

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

[X] No, keep IModel detachable I can see Pedro's point. A Model really is only something that can get and set. But detaching is such an important part of the lifecycle of many Wicket things (including Models) that I think it is an acceptable tradeoff in clarity to have IModel extend IDetachable.

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

[-1] No, keep IModel detachable Sven On 03.04.2017 09:38, Emond Papegaaij wrote: Something went wrong sending this mail. I did write some more, but somehow my mail client lost it. So here's the vote again: I think we are not going to agree on this proposal. I think it is not an improvement

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

[x] No, keep IModel detachable Even I understand Pedro's concern, Emond raised one of the most important point here: detaching is entirely part of the model life-cycle.

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

[ X ] No, keep IModel detachable Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Emond Papegaaij wrote: > Something went wrong sending this mail. I did write some more, but somehow > my > mail client lost

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

Something went wrong sending this mail. I did write some more, but somehow my mail client lost it. So here's the vote again: I think we are not going to agree on this proposal. I think it is not an improvement and I do not agree with you that IModel should not be detachable by default. So lets

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:20 AM, Emond Papegaaij wrote: > TL;DR Vote at the bottom > > On zondag 2 april 2017 00:25:12 CEST Pedro Santos wrote: > > > The major concern I have with this change is that it does not improve > > > anything. This change has impact on both

[VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

TL;DR Vote at the bottom On zondag 2 april 2017 00:25:12 CEST Pedro Santos wrote: > > The major concern I have with this change is that it does not improve > > anything. This change has impact on both the calling and implementing > > side of detach. Neither side becomes easier. > > It does