sometimes more concise class names are better...
Sure, but so concise that it doesn't differentiates itself from other models?
If I see ObjectModel i would assume that it keeps
reference to an object.
OK, I wouldn't.
Sven
Matej Knopp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
Hi Matej,
I don't know how my suggestion is related to seriousness, you don't have to
question my Java 101.
I'm not questioning your Java 101. But in your previous email you
basically suggested that ObjectModel can't hold a collection because I
said it holds single object.
I was specifically referring to your statement:
ObjectModel sounds like a really good name to me because it says what it
does.
Holds single object.
I thought you wanted to emphasize *single*, which doesn't fit for many cases
where Wicket components access a list of objects through their model. I know
that a collection object is still a single instance but semantically it's
'many'. BTW we had this discussion about introducing a specialized
collection model a few months ago.
I didn't emphasize single. I just stated a fact. If i wanted to
emphasize single I would have called it SingleObjectModel.
Collection in java is an object. If I call something ObjectModel do
you have any reason to assume that it can't hold a collection?
Every model provides access to an object, so the emphasis can't be on
*object* either.
Every model provides access to an object but every model does it
differently. If I see ObjectModel i would assume that it keeps
reference to an object.
I could have of course suggested ObjectReferenceKeepingModel but
sometimes more concise class names are better...
If you want to stress the fact, that the current Model class *holds* an
object, then why don't you suggest to rename it to HoldModel?
Why would I want to do that?
-Matej
Regards
Sven
Matej Knopp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
So ObjectModel will hold a single object only? What about lists and
collections?
Are you serious? A collection is still one instance. It doesn't matter
how many references it holds.
-Matej
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
