For the record, I'm -1 also (non-binding of course). We have to be careful here. Tapestry got a bad reputation for changing things way too much between major revisions and leaving their users out in the cold. It's one of the reasons I'm in the "Wicket World" these days. By no means do I want to stifle innovation or anything, but breaking compatibility should come with a rather big value-add. In this case, I agree that the "I" is ugly and I actually hate it, but how much is it actually going to improve a Wicket user's day-to-day coding with Wicket. Is it going to save hundreds of lines of code? Is it going to save 20 minutes of development time per day?
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Matej Knopp <[email protected]> wrote: > Anyhow, this doesn't look like lot of people are in favor of dropping > I. In that case we should make sure that *all* interfaces in 1.5 are > prefixed in I. If we go the (imho) ugly and non conventional way then > we should at least be consistent. > > -Matej > > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:28 AM, 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 >> >
