Less verbose should not take to much influence to naming - like LAEB (it is 
short but who knows what it stands for) ;-)

kind regards

Tobias

> Am 11.03.2016 um 22:19 schrieb Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>:
> 
> Hi Tobias,
> 
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 10:06 PM, Tobias Soloschenko <
> [email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Martin,
>> 
>> I think option 2 sounds good to me and if this is going to be the
>> preferred way we can set old components to deprecated with a javadoc
>> linking to the new.
> 
> For short logic using lambdas is OK, but for something longer I like
> #onXyz() better.
> Something like the following is also fine for my taste:
> 
> class MyPanel extends Panel {
> 
>   public MyPanel(String id) {
>     super(id);
> 
>     add(new LambdaAjaxLink("doAjaxLink", this::onDoAjax));
>   }
> 
>   private void onDoAjax(AjaxRequestTarget target) { ... }
> 
> }
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> I would prefer not to use a shortcuts like I for Interface ...  -
>> LambdaAjaxEventBehavior is good. :-)
> 
> Yes, I've considered this too, but the idea of the lambdas is to be less
> verbose :-)
> That's why I've asked for suggestions.
> 
> 
>> 
>> kind regards
>> 
>> Tobias
>> 
>>> Am 11.03.2016 um 21:45 schrieb Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>:
>>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to ask you for your opinion on the following options:
>>> 
>>> 1) introduce java.util.function.Consumer in the existing components and
>>> behaviors
>>> Example:
>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/blob/lambdas-ajax/wicket-core/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ajax/AjaxEventBehavior.java
>>> 
>>> Pros:
>>> - reuse the same components/behaviors as before
>>> 
>>> Cons:
>>> - the components/behaviors are no more abstract and the developer may
>>> forget to add implementation, i.e. provide consumer or override #onXyz()
>>> method
>>> 
>>> 2) introduce new components and behaviors
>>> Example:
>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/blob/lambdas-ajax-L/wicket-core/src/main/java/org/apache/wicket/ajax/LAjaxEventBehavior.java
>>> 
>>> Pros:
>>> - more cleaner API
>>> 
>>> Cons:
>>> - yet another class for the same functionality
>>> - a bit uglier name. Whatever name I imagine doesn't sound better than
>> the
>>> name of the original class
>>> 
>>> 3) 2) but in separate module (e.g. wicket-java8)
>>> 
>>> 4) 2) but in WicketStuff project
>>> 
>>> 5) Other ideas ?
>>> 
>>> Martin Grigorov
>>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>>> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
>> 

Reply via email to