On 8/16/07, Kent Tong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > We never override isRequired in Wicket. So we keep the contract of > > setRequired. But we shouldn't prevent users to override it. If user > > wants to break the set contract, it's ok. I don't see anything bad > > about it. > > Personally I also don't see anything wrong about it. Just that from > the core Wicket code it seems the convention is to make methods final > by default and make them non-final only when necessary.
imho this shouldve been the default java convention. it takes more thought and analysis to design something to be overridable. -igor
