I don't have a problem with breaking compatibility. Makeing a step forward and
making things better always leaves behind something. Mostly something not so
good. I like the way wicket names interfaces with I... and we followed this
conventiun in our coding rules. But taking a look at some of
-1
If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
**
Martin
If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
The thing here is that not all of us agree that it ain't broken.
-Matej
+1
(non-binding)
--
AT®
Well.. if it runs it ain't broken. But ofcourse if we want to refactor
just for the sake of arts, why the hell not!
**
Martin
2009/10/3 Matej Knopp matej.kn...@gmail.com:
If it ain't broken, don't try to fix it.
The thing here is that not all of us agree that it ain't broken.
-Matej
renaming season?
I think Model (interface) / ObjectModel is the best alternative.
ObjectModel says enough about the implementation - that it holds a
single object. But I don't think this thread is about actual naming.
It's more about pros cons of the prefix.
Get rid of IModel, call it
-1
I've got to like the convention after sometime using Wicket. Right now when
I want to look for an interface and I do not remember his exact name typing
ctr-shit-T and I on eclipse will provide me with an initial list to be
further filtered out... But I guess I will get used to other conventions
I am also curious how much more difficult it will make to switch from
1.4 to 1.5. The cost of renaming according to some fasion might
accumulate to millions of dollars in worldwide development teams. Just
for the sake of some damn another naming gimmic which does not bring
any real functionality
Oh come one. There are like 5 interfaces in Wicket prefixed with I
that projects normally use. Couple of search and replace will
certainly not bankrupt anyone.
-Matej
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:51 AM, Martin Makundi
martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote:
I am also curious how much more
Ok, that's a good answer. If this is true, I will vote for what ever
makes the artists happy.
**
Martin
2009/10/3 Matej Knopp matej.kn...@gmail.com:
Oh come one. There are like 5 interfaces in Wicket prefixed with I
that projects normally use. Couple of search and replace will
certainly not
Ok, so, how does the WicketFilter figure out which mapper to use?
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:50 AM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
it warms my heart to see that matej and i have slaved over a new
design and an initial implementation to eliminate a huge pain point
and the only
Very good point. I am worried that changing the i will only make
some very few core develoeprs or newcomers slightly bit happier until
they forget about that new thang.
**
Martin
2009/10/3 James Carman jcar...@carmanconsulting.com:
For the record, I'm -1 also (non-binding of course). We have
Hi,
I would like commit access for wicket stuff.
I plan working on Wicket-Stuff-TinyMCE.
My sourceforge id is 'tals10'
Regards,
Tal
you are in.
-igor
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 6:19 AM, Tal Shimoni tshim...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I would like commit access for wicket stuff.
I plan working on Wicket-Stuff-TinyMCE.
My sourceforge id is 'tals10'
Regards,
Tal
Igor, could you add https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2491 to the
issues planned for 1.4.3?
igor.vaynberg wrote:
ive already rebuilt 1.4.2. this will have to wait for 1.4.3
-igor
On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Vladimir Kovalyuk koval...@gmail.com
wrote:
When Wicket is
i would like to invalidate some of the migration will be too hard
concerns with a simple test. you are welcome to run this on your own
projects, i am running it on a midsized project i am working on...
igor.vaynb...@bender:~/dev/src/biggie$ find -name *.java | xargs cat | wc -l
192625
if this happened it would only be done to 1.5 which has api breaks
anyways - so production systems would not be migrating to 1.5 anyways.
-igor
On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 4:45 PM, tetsuo ronald.tet...@gmail.com wrote:
But please take in account the number of third-party component libraries,
which
17 matches
Mail list logo
