We use enclosures on 50 locations in the codebase, sometimes also with <... child=....>.. I guess we can rework them, but I rather not spend time refactoring them as for us they work fine :) We don't use component queueing.
-Rob On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM Thomas Heigl <tho...@umschalt.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it. > > Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick search > in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this. I've > never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work to > migrate everything to EnclosureContainer > > Thomas. > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing. > > > > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems > > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing > > in Wicket itself. > > > > :(. > > > > Regards > > Sven > > > > > > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me > :-). > > > I'm also for removing it along with <wicket:enclosure>. To be more > clear, > > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with > > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component > > queueing > > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal > > classes, > > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer. > > > So +2 for me. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org > > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > >> > > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > >>> > > >> Wow! > > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted > > down > > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good > > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest > > 10-20 %. > > >> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>! > > >> > > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows > > its > > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will > > >> simplify a lot! > > >> > > >> > > >>> Have fun > > >>> Sven > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > thinking/working > > >> on > > >>>> Wicket 10 ? > > >>>> > > >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > > >> covered > > >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > > >> going > > >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > > >> Wicket > > >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > > >>> should > > >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > still > > >> use > > >>>> Java 8 for some reason. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> > > > > > >
