Should we strive to ease the addition of lambda expressions to Wicket by
introducing single method interfaces in various places in Wicket 7?
For a contrived example:
AbstractLink#setBody(IModel<?> bodyModel) {}
Could be:
AbstractLink#setBody(IReadModel<?> bodyModel) {}
So that you can do:
link.setBody( () -> "Click me!" );
This would replace the old and tried:
link.setBody( new AbstractReadOnlyModel<Object>() {
public Object getObject() {
return "Click me!";
}
});
Of course this particular example is better done with Model.of("Click
me!"), but the lambda expression is what makes this more interesting.
My proposal is to do what Michael Mosmann (iirc) has proposed previously
with splitting read and write of IModel, and use it to our advantage in
preparing for java 8 in various places.
Components that are candidates for using Single Method Interface models may
include:
- Label
- AbstractLink#body
- Repeaters
- ...
While I suppose it is early for us to consider full adoption of Java 8
lambda's, I doubt it can really hurt us badly if we take this small step.
Martijn
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>wrote:
> Check
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0
> Also Jira filter
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080shows all
> tickets which are fixed only in 7.0.0. There are some new
> features which are not listed in the migration guide.
> There are no revolutionary changes. Only improvements which cannot be done
> in 6.x because of API breaks, behavior change or too risky for a minor
> version.
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Nick Pratt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer marked
> > experimental? Is there anything significant in the core Wicket lib?
> >
> > N
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been
> made
> > > non-experimental.
> > > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for
> milestone
> > > version).
> > > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> > >
> > > Martin Grigorov
> > > Wicket Training and Consulting
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > > [email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> > [email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an
> > entry
> > > > in
> > > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> > discussion
> > > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I
> believe
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> > > >
> > > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
> > > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There
> were
> > > > just a
> > > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> > > users'
> > > > > feedback.
> > > > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to
> > > make
> > > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> > > >
> > > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> > > >
> > > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar
> framework.
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap>
> or
> > > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its
> packages.
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> > > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now,
> and
> > > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
> > > > issues.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
