I don't have a problem with breaking compatibility. Makeing a step forward and making things better always leaves behind something. Mostly something not so good. I like the way wicket names interfaces with I... and we followed this conventiun in our coding rules. But taking a look at some of our wicket projects shows that we use only a few of Wicket's I... directly - IModel (sure) - ITab - IColumn - ILinkListener - IUnauthorizedComponentInstantiationListener
That's nearly all. Only very few others and only one occurence per project. Stefan. -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[email protected]] Gesendet: Samstag, 3. Oktober 2009 03:03 An: [email protected] Betreff: Re: taking the I out of Interface for people who are going to say that this is going to break compatibility: please look through your code and count the number of places where you implement a wicket-specific interface directly. we would like to know how often and what these interfaces are. thanks, -igor On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> wrote: > is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface names? wicket > has been the only project i have ever worked on/used that follows this > convention, is it time for a change? > > this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention is teh > aw3s0m3st, simply a discussion of whether or not we should switch. > > -igor >
