On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 13:21:13 -0700, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
wrote:
but then all you are doing is repeating the information that is
already in the method signature in the method name. why?
-igor
Very simple: communication. In my previous e-mail I constantly had to write
+1
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface names? wicket
has been the only project i have ever worked on/used that follows this
convention, is it time for a change?
this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention is teh
aw3s0m3st, simply a discussion
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Eelco Hillenius
eelco.hillen...@gmail.com wrote:
I never liked the code format we're using (curly braces on the
next line), but heck even though Wicket is the only project I've ever
worked on (as far as I can remember) where I used that
It's in the Topicus code
-1
While I don't like the I-prefix, I don't want to remove it from our interfaces.
I don't see any benefit other than removing some perceived confusion.
No matter how you name IModel, the concept will still be confusing as
hell.
I'm -1 on this proposal because the benefits (which are low, or
Though I have no commit access for Wicket I want to chime in on the
discussion:
I would vote for removing the 'I' because personally I dislike it and
consider it a violation of Java
code conventions. But what's even more important:
! Please choose one or the other and then stick to it
hmmm i kind of like it
IModel or Model
And yes talking about abstract we already do that in places we have
AbstractRequestCycleProcessor
Or do you want to rename that to RequestCycleProcessor but what is then the
interface name?
It does break quite a lot of api without really fixing anything..
so the difference is
map(handler) vs maphandler() and map(url) vs mapurl() ?
-igor
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Erik van Oosten e.vanoos...@grons.nl wrote:
On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 13:21:13 -0700, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
wrote:
but then all you are doing is repeating the
I've created issue for this: WICKET-2507
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2507
--
Daniel
On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Daniel Stoch daniel.st...@gmail.com wrote:
But I have tried your proposition and instead wicket:link in html, I
have added it in HomePage constructor:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Robin Sander robin.san...@gmx.net wrote:
Another question because someone mentioned it in this thread and I asked
this question myself:
why do we need an empty interface for Model? Why can't a mere String or any
serializable POJO be
used as a model? (than this
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Eelco Hillenius
eelco.hillen...@gmail.com wrote:
I never liked the code format we're using (curly braces on the
next line), but heck even though Wicket is the only project I've ever
worked on (as far as I can remember) where I used that
It's in the Topicus
Me either - a waste of vertical space. Oh well.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Eelco Hillenius
eelco.hillen...@gmail.comwrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Eelco Hillenius
eelco.hillen...@gmail.com wrote:
I never liked the
+1
I agree, names like IThing and ThingImpl can be a sign of not thinking too
hard about naming things (and even a rush to get coding without enough
thought put into design - but that's a long story). For me, dropping those
I prefixes and any Impl suffixes will make the project code-base look
Mythbusters has proved that a lead balloon can rise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZSkM-QEeUg
Ryan Gravener
http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 1:06 PM, jWeekend jweekend_for...@cabouge.com wrote:
+1
I agree, names like IThing and ThingImpl can be a sign of not thinking too
I agree, names like IThing and ThingImpl can be a sign of not thinking too
hard about naming things (and even a rush to get coding without enough
thought put into design - but that's a long story).
I* is just a convention, which some like, others dislike, and *Impl are
perfectly fine when
Ok, but changing curly braces' alignment would break no compatibility at
all... ;-)
Daniel
jthomerson wrote:
Me either - a waste of vertical space. Oh well.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Eelco Hillenius
And good, consistent naming of classes and
other identifiers is a non-trivial aspect of good design and coding,
especially in publicly used parts of frameworks
True, but imho that has more to do with choosing names that
communicate what things do well, not so much whether there are certain
Eelco,
But that's the whole point - class names that end in Impl are not a names
that communicates what things do well. The point of each implementation is
that it is a specialisation of the supertype. So the name should illustrate
that - ie HashMap (not a MapImpl). The good news is, this form
What if I have
a class for the iPlayer (a BBC service for watching already broadcast TV
programs online). If I call my class IPlayer do I need to worry that half
the world is going to think it's an interface.
Oh, Apple will have a lot of trouble if they try to use Wicket :)
Again,
18 matches
Mail list logo
