I'm not a committer, just a normal 1.5 user concerned about bloat. For what it's worth, I took a few minutes to actually look at the change (MarkupContainer as you'd expect) and I can see that if you don't use the new queue methods, the only a memory overhead is the *static* QUEUE (nothing extra per component!) so I appreciate that performance-wise anyway, it's a low impact feature you can ignore without penalty.
I'm not thrilled about the conceptual impact of adding a new concern to an already large class, but the implementation looks quite nice actually, so my first concern that it might break existing behavior is satisfied. I still don't think it's necessary, and wonder if it might actually be counter-productive to have more than one way to learn for new adopters. If it goes forward, I don't suppose there's much precedent for taking something back out, is there? What a difficult discussion to have over email - I'm in the -1 camp on this overall, but I think I do appreciate the admirable motive to innovate, so I hope the committers will give this serious consideration and then chuck it in the bin where it ... no, just kidding, ;) and then make a fair decision. Thanks, --Jim Pinkham. On Thu, Jan 20, 2011 at 12:24 PM, Martin Makundi < martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote: > http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4089/4968160827_b742a7448a_z.jpg > > ..hrm.. putting that aside, did you give it a test drive? > > ** > Martin > > 2011/1/20 Jeremy Thomerson <jer...@wickettraining.com>: > > On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Martin Makundi < > > martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote: > > > >> Can we bargain about this? Say, also wicket auto ajax enclosure and > >> both into 1.4-x > >> > > > > This made me laugh. What is the other side of the "bargain"? What does > the > > giving party get in return? :) > > > > Apache is all about consensus. If the project management committee (who > > ultimately has to lead and guide the project) agrees that something is > > useful, beneficial, and not detrimental, they allow it to be added by the > > committers. In the case of Wicket, each committer is also on the PMC. > So, > > with several committers against this feature being added to 1.4.x (myself > > included) and possibly even 1.5, you must persuade them (us) as to why it > is > > needed. > > > > That being said, this has already been a really long thread (over 100 > > messages), so you're up against bad odds. > > > > -- > > Jeremy Thomerson > > http://wickettraining.com > > *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > >
