And by example I mean: a document that is on our website, not something in wicket-examples.
Martijn On 2/25/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Very convenient to hold a vote when I'm not around... -1 on removing the constructor. Just as Jonathan, I have tons of code that relies on that constructor. If the reason is that people don't read documentation, then we can scrap about 100% of our internal api, you know, where it reads "DON'T CALL THIS", or "DON'T OVERRIDE THIS'? Why hasn't anyone proposed to write an example that displays this problem to our new users? Make it VERY clear that it is not the way to link? Education is writing documentation too, not just removing API because it can be used wrong. Martijn On 2/23/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > yes. i'm +1 on removing that constructor for user education purposes. > it's good to prevent innocent people from doing something naive here. > > > Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > > > Ok. As long as the page constructor goes. That one is too dangerous > > and sweat starts breaking out all over when I think of the number of > > people that may be mis-using this class already. > > > > Eelco > > > > On 2/23/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> BookmarkableLink and PageLink are different things. > >> They do generate different urls. (and maybe some security things > >> can be easier applied to a pagelink then on a bookmarkable page > >> which exposes the page class directly) > >> > >> So i would say just remove the Page constructor. > >> > >> johan > >> > >> On 2/23/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > hey, i'm USING this! you will break a ton of my code for no reason. > >> > > >> > the IPageLink constructor is useful for delayed construction with > >> > interesting parameters and also fits neatly in with the way i do > >> > navigations > >> > (the page identity bit). > >> > > >> > i'm very -1 for removing this. > >> > > >> > if you really MUST mess with the api because it doesn't fit your style, > >> > can > >> > we at least keep for people like me who are using it or like it and > >> rename > >> > to DelayedPageLink or something? > >> > > >> > > >> > Matej Knopp wrote: > >> > > > >> > > Frank Bille wrote: > >> > >> On 2/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> > >> > >>> why dont we just remove PageLink altogether? > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> +1, remove the bastard :) > >> > >> > >> > >> Frank > >> > >> > >> > > a big +1 from me too. > >> > > > >> > > -Matej > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > View this message in context: > >> > > >> http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-remove-PageLink%28String%2CPage%29-constructor-tf3274259.html#a9115685 > >> > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-remove-PageLink%28String%2CPage%29-constructor-tf3274259.html#a9122967 > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > -- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
-- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
