Sven, Igor,

Do you have an agreement how IChoiceRenderer should look like in Wicket 7.x
?

I really like to release 7.0.0-M1 so we got some user feedback.

Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting


On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 8:10 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Sorry for the rant...
>
> The transition from 1.4 to 1.5 was awful (full of such minor breaking
> changes), but not so afterwards, I know I'm overreacting. Probably it's
> because it happened (a colleague complaining about all the compiling errors
> when upgrading from 1.4) last week :/
>
> And well... it's somewhat inevitable to avoid compiling errors when
> evolving a framework that is strongly type-safe (which is a great plus).
>
> Sorry again.
>
> But I still like my enums, please keep the interfaces :)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 6:21 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Guillaume, you're right.
> > >
> > > Martin, sorry for the misunderstanding.
> > >
> > > Enums can't extend any classes besides Enum. But can implement
> > interfaces.
> > >
> >
> > Thanks! Now it is clear to me.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I use Enums in lots of places, not as enums, but as singletons, because
> > > they won't be serialized, won't carry unintended references, and use
> > > virtually no memory in pages. Converters, Renderers, Validators, Models
> > > (less so of the former, since it almost always needs state). If
> IBehavior
> > > still existed, and didn't have so many methods, I'd use enums to
> > implement
> > > some of them, too.
> > >
> > > But my main complaint is not specific to this issue, however. I'm more
> > > concerned about frequent breaking API changes with no practical
> > advantage.
> > > Javascript/JavaScript, addComponent/add(Component) and the like. I'm at
> > the
> > > point that I'm starting to feel unconfortable recommending Wicket to
> > > people, because I know an year from now they will complain that they
> > > upgraded a library and a thousand compiling errors appeared. 98% of
> them
> > > are very simple errors, but it's a daunting task neverthless.
> > >
> > >
> > Options:
> > 1) Wicket devs stop developing Wicket so the API stays stable forever
> > 2) application developers don't upgrade to next major version of Wicket
> > 3) find the golden middle.
> >
> > I think we all agree that 3) is the best for all and that we (Wicket
> devs)
> > try to follow it:
> >
> > - we use SemVer to make it easier for application developers to know when
> > to expect API breaks and when to not expect such
> > - we discuss most of the API breaks for major versions here in dev@.
> >   If there are issues identified on time we react! Even this change has
> > been discussed before being made
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 12:44 PM, Martin Grigorov <
> mgrigo...@apache.org
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > As Martijn explained all that is needed is:
> > > > - s/implements/extends/
> > > > - remove the leading 'I' from IChoiceRenderer
> > > >
> > > > If the interface is preserved then all custom impls will have to add
> > > > implementation of the new method introduced with WICKET-663. This IMO
> > > will
> > > > lead to more work for the application developers.
> > > >
> > > > As I said: I am not against restoring the interface, just don't see
> its
> > > > value.
> > > >
> > > > Martin Grigorov
> > > > Wicket Training and Consulting
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Guillaume Smet <
> > > guillaume.s...@gmail.com
> > > > >wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2014 at 4:33 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > Because... it's an unnecessary breaking change?
> > > > >
> > > > > From what I understand of your previous post, you implements some
> of
> > > > > your converters in Enums, which you can do because IChoiceRenderer
> is
> > > > > currently an interface. And you won't be able to do it if it's a
> > > > > class.
> > > > >
> > > > > Am I right?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Reply via email to