I don't think the analogy with tapestry is right. We break stuff between every major release but we also provide migration path. In tapestry the migration path is pretty much non-existent. The problem with tapestry is not that they break stuff. The problem is that you have to rewrite entire application if you want to update.
-Matej On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 2:37 PM, James Carman <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> >> >
