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 <> 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
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 08:41:02 +0200
> Martin Makundi <> 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 <>:
>> > Chicken.
>> >
>> > 2010/11/9 Eelco Hillenius <>:
>> >>> 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:
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

Reply via email to