On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrew Geery <andrew.ge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I personally find queueing really useful. > > I'm curious why people aren't using it. > > Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in > the markup? > well, it is all in the code see Sven's commit at https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/adbf35e6176ea69a36e5c7eaf1f514fac99cb91e it adds complexity and fails at random corner cases and no one wants to maintain this extra complexity and add more on top of it > > Thanks > Andrew > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > > > Hi Ernesto, > > > > if you want to do some tests: > > > > https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing > > > > Have fun > > Sven > > > > On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > >> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite > > >> simple. > > >> > > >> > > > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. > > and a > > > large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. > > > > > > Regards > > >> Sven > > >> > > >> > > >> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org > > > > >> wrote: > > >>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > >>>> reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> Hi Martin, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> How much work do you think this will imply? > > >>>>> > > >>>> Removing the component queueing ? > > >>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > > >>>> Why do you ask ? > > >>>> > > >>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > > >> this > > >>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. > Now > > it > > >>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I > > was > > >>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to > remove > > >>> something that is almost working in all cases. > > >>> > > > > > >
