http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/FAQs#FAQs-WhatisthefutureofonAttachandonDetachmethods%3F
On 3/9/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the power of the wiki is that anyone can contribute :) -igor On 3/9/07, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Cool Igor... Now I see the problem and what's coming next :) > > PS: this explanation should be wiked !! =) > > []'s > > On 3/9/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > we are trying to consolidate the methods. we have a bunch of > > internalOnAttach/internalAttach/attach/onattach methods. its a big mess. > > what this refactor does is give you one method you can override - > > onattach() > > but forces the call to super. > > > > doing it like it has been done doesnt work. users assume onattach() is a > > template method, they can override and not have to call super - but this > > fails if you go more then one method deep! > > > > if i create a custom component and do something in onattach(), then the > > user > > subclasses it and they do something in onattach() and dont bother to > call > > super() they will break my functionality. my only choice of action is to > > make onattach() final in my custom component and provide yet another > > template for the user, onattach2() ? this just doesnt scale. better to > > have > > a simple and clear contract - onattach and ondetach always require the > > call > > to super. > > > > unfortunately the only way to do that at this point _and_ keep the same > > method names is to do what i did. > > > > OT there is a jsr for software defect annotations that includes > something > > like @MustCallSuper (forget what its called), that combined with an apt > > builder in an ide will make these kinds of contracts very easy to > enforce > > at > > compile time. we are just not there just yet. > > > > -igor > > > > > > On 3/9/07, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I want to make a comment about the onAttach/Detach refactor: > > > > > > This really can't be done without breaking current overridden codes? > > > > > > Isn't possible to convert onAttach to final onBeforeAttach, and let > > > onAttach > > > empty so users can override? The same for detach... > > > > > > []'s > > > > > > On 3/9/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > he forgot the onattach/detach refactor which will break a lot of > > clients > > > > in > > > > runtime if they overrode onattach/detach and didnt call super(). > > > > > > > > so dont worry. > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > On 3/9/07, Nick Heudecker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, the differences between 2.0 > > > > > > and 1.3 are also models, validators and generics. I think that's > > it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oh, that's all? For a second I was worried. :) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Nick Heudecker > > > > > Professional Wicket Training & Consulting > > > > > http://www.systemmobile.com > > > > > > > > > > Eventful - Intelligent Event Management > > > > > http://www.eventfulhq.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Bruno Borges > > > Summa Technologies Inc. > > > www.summa-tech.com > > > (48) 8404-1300 > > > (11) 3055-2060 > > > > > > > > > -- > Bruno Borges > Summa Technologies Inc. > www.summa-tech.com > (48) 8404-1300 > (11) 3055-2060 >
