On 10/16/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I live closer to you then Igor. In fact, I might even not allow you to drink beer this weekend :)
I have a stack full of Gifkikkers, so you come and try :-)... I bet you'll have a headache the next morning... And it won't be from debating this issue ;-) Martijn ps. Gifkikker is the company beer: http://bier.topicus.nl
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> >
-- <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>
