It was so difficult to get the feature approved we didn't want to slow the process down by debating its name then.
But now might be a good time ;) ** Martin 2012/4/11 Minas Manthos <[email protected]>: > Hi > > I know there is already a lot discussion about "Component queueing" > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3335). > > Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm feeling not so comfortable with the term > 'queue'. I know you had a lot to do than discuss about the term, but I had > to write this before it's finished and released. > > For me a 'queue' has more to do with first-in-first-out-things and IMO it's > suboptimal in this context... > > I suggest to name it 'put' instead of 'queue'. So, I put a component into a > container. > > add(...) -> adds a component (explicitely) into a container > put(...) -> puts a component into a container (to be used freely during > rendering) > > It's only my point of view... Please don't get me wrong, I don't want to > start a big discussion about this (maybe you just want to vote?). Anyway.. > if you think 'queue' is the right term for this, ok, for me it's not a > problem. > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Queueing-components-tp4549759p4549759.html > Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at > Nabble.com.
