On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:01:28 +0200 Martin Makundi <martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
> Hi! > > > Coding friction? Yes. Every time I need to look at somebody else's > > code and try to figure out what exactly they did. > > Ah.. so you are trying to solve your problem probably from the wrong > end? If you have bad warriors give them plastic swords so they can > hurt nobody? Training, Coding dojos, Code Reviews, Coding Policies, > Dream teams, ... So a clear architecture is a plastic sword? And "do whatever you want" is better? > > Please consider the needy ones that would have to deal with this and > > would have to support people who made the mistake of using it :-) > > I don't think there is a substitute for coding skills/talent ;))) There isn't. That's not the point. So far your argument seems to be #1 "I don't like this" and #2 those who don't agree with you aren't good coders. > >> It's just the itchy feeling you get all day long when coding "in > >> the zone". "This unneccessary fuzz is in my way". > > > > If you only write code and never read or need to fix it. > > I understand if you are a consultant it gives you plenty of billable > to code again and again. WTF? Your argument #3 is that *I* want to screw my customers over? Seriously? > But my sweetspot is product development and I > need to make flexibly reusable components and unfortunately requiring > html hierarchy to match on different pages makes really messy code on > java side if I try to implement free-from-iherarchy in a manual way (I > must provide various different parent containers to a generic > component so that it can land in the right place). This just doesn't make sense. Put your stuff in a panel, then it's a self-contained component and insulated from the hierarchy of the page and other components. Then you can put that component wherever you want. > > Well that certainly applies the other way around too. It's not for > > everybody, so please don't introduce a new source of bugs into > > *this* toolkit. Also, unless I missed a message (which is > > possible), so far we seem to have a needy *one*, not *ones*. > > Still, I don't think there is a substitute for coding > skills/talent ;))) And I still haven't yet seen a convincing example of this being a problem worth adding the complexity. Then again, in the end the Wicket devs need to decide on whether they want to support this or not. So far *my* definitely non-binding vote is -1 :) Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
