Should we rename IModel to Model we would also have to rename Model to something. ObjectModel sounds like a really good name to me because it says what it does. Holds single object.
Locator sounds really weird. I think renaming Model to Locator would be hell lot more confusing than renaming IModel to Model. -Matej On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 for removing 'I'. I personally do like it but since this is what the > committers prefer than I'm fine. > > -1 for renaming Model to anything else. > @Erik: it'd be interesting to be at a course of jWeekend where you'll > explain to the attendees "Wicket consists of components, models, ... and > the basic model is Locator (and all implementations end with **Model)". > I'll find it confusing. > I hope Wicket 1.5 will not rename all existing Model implementations. > > A side note: some third party projects already depends on 'I' classes. > For example Terracotta depends on IClusterable for its Wicket module. > Take this into account as well. > > El dom, 04-10-2009 a las 13:55 +0200, Erik van Oosten escribió: >> I agree, the I is useless. Provided there is a good migration I'd say: +1. >> >> I also agree with Martin, lets change IModel to Locator while we're at it! >> >> Regards, >> Erik. >> >> >> Igor Vaynberg 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 >> > >> >> > >
