decide on the name when it works...which may be never -igor
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Martin Makundi <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
