Menu is a good idea! I worked on this piece a little bit, (Took some cues from Swing menu component), but i hit a dead end with keeping markup consistent. Probably because i dont know wicket well enough; But i am pretty sure it will be a good add on!.
Rick On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 2:36 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The way 1.3 works currently has been fine with me and any type mismatch > in programming error usually result in crash with obvious location of error > and easily fixed. > So to me, it is optional and not very important. Switching to java 5 does > not mean wicket must include generics, there are many other features in java > 5 could be used to enhance wicket. and I feel the most helpful new > facilities of wicket could be some powerful widgets, layouts, menus that one > can use java api to produce (it could use any JS toolkits). Although it was > contended that wicket is server side framework, without those widgets, it > would not help spread its use as a Java web toolkit. It is true one could > write javascript for some of them, > but integration with java api would distinguish wicket from the rest. > I know there are some projects like this but it would be nice to have > it in wicket core as a strategic effort. > > It might not be worth a huge undertaking for a web framework, considering > there are so many other equally crucial factors such as the > widget issue above to make a web app successful. > > > > >Hi all, > > > >We have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some > >discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket. > > > >I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular > >Wicket users as we can. Please help us get an impression of what our > >users think about the issue by completing this simple survey. Note > >that it is not a vote; we only want to get an idea of what you think. > > > >1) Generifying* Wicket > > [ ] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models > >and components are both generified. I care most about the improved > >static type checking generified models and components give Wicket. > > [ ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify > >IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do > >for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models > >for instance) than static type checking. > > [ ] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill > >in your opinion here). > > [ ] .... (anything other than these choices?) > > > >2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above? > > [ ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start > >using 1.4 and up. > > [ ] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win. > > [ ] I definitively won't be using 1.4. if Wicket doesn't go for my > >preference. > > > >Thanks in advance for everyone participating, and pls feel free to > >explain yourself further beyond just answering these questions! > > > >Eelco > > > >p.s. I suggest that the core devs and most active participants and > >previous discussions wait a few days before giving their opinions so > >that we don't flood the thread right from the start. > > > >* Parameterizing would probably be the better word to use, but > >generifying seems to be the word that many people use. > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- > >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
