why dont we just remove PageLink altogether?
-igor
On 2/22/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2/22/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Igor Vaynberg:
>
> > yet another example of noobs precrecreating page instances
> > before the link is clicked. the api of that constructor simply
> > sucks. and yes martijn, it is very convinient to do new
> > pagelink("back", backpageinstancesyougotpassedintothispage), but
> > you can live with a few more lines of code :)
>
> It's definitely a habit to start votes whereas a discussion is
> sufficient ;-)
I guess this is a second try though. Last vote was voto-ed if I
remember correctly. But we just had proof that people were using this
method, which can be ok if you use it to pass a reference that you
would already be passing anyway, but not ok (not to say a very bad
idea) when passing in a new instance. I agree with Igor this method is
distracting and encourages bad practice.
>
> If you remove the constructor, how do you create a link to an
> instance of a page then?
new Link("foo") {
public void onClick() {
setResponsePage(new MyPage());
}
}
> I think it's more useful to remove PageLink(String, Class) because
> there is BookmarkablePageLink already that is stateless.
I don't have a strong opinion on that at this point, but it looks like
you're right about that.
Eelco
