Copied from Wicket mailing list (more relevant here).
Efy, I thought wicket 2.0 make life really difficult for pax-wicket. That's not the case, then? You guys were able to find an elegant solution after all? Cheers, Dave On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 08:09 +0800, Edward Yakop wrote: > > It looks like quite a few people, more than I expected in fact, > > weren't that crazy about the constructor refactor in the first place, > > though some people like it better in general (me being one of them > > though I see disadvantages as well, but also > > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg00402.html). > > Based on the replies in this thread, it seems that people find add > > more intuitive and like the flexibility that gives you over the > > tighter model of 2.0 > Personally I prefer the tighter model. What we did on pax-wicket 1.0 > examples if I'm not mistaken will cause a higher penalty during > serialization/deserialization compared to pax-wicket 2.0. > > However, If wicket-1.0 style .add() voted, please add generic support > to wicket 1.x. > > Regards, > Edward Yakop > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT > Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your > opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/general
