For what it's worth, I agree with these sentiments. I am not jazzed about this whole auto hierarchy idea. I too like the predictability of Wicket and I don't mind staying within the confines of a strict hierarchy. I've kept quiet until now because I really don't have the time to jump into this debate whole-heartedly, but I wanted to at least let my voice be heard as one who opposes such an idea.
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:15 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel <cmen...@wicketbuch.de> wrote: > Hi, > > no offense meant, but the rhetoric in this thread is getting more and > more ridiculous. "Chicken"? "Component hierarchy hell"? Seriously? At > most maybe "component hierarchy slight annoyance." > > I am not at all convinced that this is a good idea. In my opinion, one > of the strongest and best points about Wicket is that it has a set of > very clear and logical concepts and does not deviate from them. > I especially like the fact that the truth is in the code and the code > rules, period. Unlike Tapestry, where you could pull all kinds of > stunts by using a special notation in the ID attributes of markup > elements. > > The next thing is going to be that some developers don't want to touch > the code just because the designer wants a login panel on this other > page too. So why can't the designer write <wicket:instantiate > class="foo"/>? It's just another hierarchy element, isn't it? > > I frankly don't see any way to have this "auto-hierarchy" stuff > without getting lots of unnecessary ambiguity and sources of bugs. I > totally agree with what Eelco wrote below, and what someone else said > about the Python way of having only *one* way to do *one* thing. > > The loss of predictability and clear concepts isn't worth the very > slight gain in... well, gain in what? In the ability to let code and > markup drift apart? To be honest, I don't even see the possible gain > with this change. > > So far, I have often heard about people not liking the requirement to > match the code hierarchy in the markup. Most (not all!) of them have > never actually used Wicket (I know this doesn't apply to Martin). Not > once have I seen a convincing productive(!) example of where it was an > actual problem. In my current day-to-day work on a reasonably large > project, this hasn't come up *at all*. Not even in our sprint > retrospectives, where people are specifically asked to complain! > > Carl-Eric > www.wicketbuch.de > > On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:41:02 +0200 > Martin Makundi <martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote: > >> Hi! >> >> Or should I say, "boldly go where no man has gone before" or "Do, or >> do not. There is no 'try.' ". >> >> ** >> Martin >> >> 2010/11/9 Martin Makundi <martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com>: >> > Chicken. >> > >> > 2010/11/9 Eelco Hillenius <eelco.hillen...@gmail.com>: >> >>> But all really depends on your approach. Some people think >> >>> dabbling in a swamp gives you a firm grip. I cosinder it the >> >>> opposite: swamp has a firm grip on you. >> >> >> >> I consider it asking for trouble. Wicket would sacrifice >> >> predictability and conceptual surface for the sake of making a few >> >> things slightly less annoying. :-) >> >> >> >> Eelco >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
