So ObjectModel will hold a single object only? What about lists and
collections?
IMHO the "Object.." prefix has no benefit.
Why not drop the Model class altogether?
Its static helper methods could be located in a new non-instantiable
class Models (note the trailing 's') because there's nothing more
exciting the Model class currently provides.
My 2 cents
Sven
Matej Knopp wrote:
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 <mcgreg...@e-card.bg> 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
