I live closer to you then Igor. In fact, I might even not allow you to drink beer this weekend :)
Eelco On 10/16/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm +0 on reverting as I tend to agree with Igor on this. Though it might be confusing for beginners, this is something that can be explained easily. I find the start up configuration more confusing (where should I configure deployment or development?) than the settings methods. Ultimately I don't mind having them or having them removed. I do agree with the intention and the reasons they were added, but I can live without them. If you point a gun to my head, or revoke my beer drinking privileges, I would do +1 on reverting. But noone is doing so at the moment, so I remain at +0. Martijn On 10/16/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > +1 to reverse this. > > the point of having that sig in both interfaces is that the setting is > applicable in both places. it is both debug related and ajax related - this > functionality is the reason why jon and i went with a single object backing > multiple interfaces. > > it also makes it easier for newbies to explore the settings. when i want to > see all ajax related settings i do getAjaxSettings(). and the ide lists them > all, when i want to see all the debug settings i do the same with > getDebugSettings(). it is not just a mere convinience. > > yes IAjaxSettings only has a single setting in it, and so does > IFrameworkSettings but who is to say in a month we wont add one more to > either one? i think its ok to start settings interfaces even though they > start out with only a single method and that method is not exclusively > applicable to any existing settings interfaces. > > yes this might ben an inconvinience for the jmx project- but that is > unrelated. either solve it there or leave it as is. > > -Igor > > On 10/16/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yesterday I removed some double app settings, like > > isAjaxDebugModeEnabled() that was defined both in IAjaxSettings > > (removed) and in IDebugSettings. I did this because I was creating > > that JMX code, and thought someone made copy 'n paste bug/ forgot to > > remove a method after refactoring. Turns out, it was on purpose. > > > > This is a vote to find out whether people want this change reversed. > > > > I'm -1 because I think it's just crazy to have multiple interfaces > > with the same method sigs just for convenience. Imo it's bloat without > > real purpose, and it's even confusing. Imagine sitting behind that JMX > > interface and wondering which isAjaxDebugModeEnabled you should set. > > > > Also, I removed IAjaxSettings as isAjaxDebugModeEnabled() was the only > > method in it. I don't think we need to go back to just one settings > > interface, but we don't have to end up with too many of them either. > > For instance, having framework settings as a different interface is ok > > now that we have it, but wouldn't be my choice if we had to do it over > > again. > > > > Votes please? > > > > Eelco > > > > -- <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote</a> for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket</a> at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in the World!</a>
