makes sense for me: +1 Juergen
On Wed, 30 Mar 2005 07:19:06 -0800, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i agree there is potential for some confusion here and would like to fix > this. > > the problem stems from the fact that IResource is completely generic > (it's in util and could be used outside wicket) and Resource is a wicket > core class designed for end-users of the framework. the intent of > Resources is NOT to be a resource listener or locator. it is to be a > resource and i really think that name should stick. i'd rather > rename/hide IResource and AbstractResource than Resource/SharedResource/etc. > > so how about this? > > we move the methods from IResourceStream into IResource and then rename > IResource to IResourceStream so that is all one big happy interface > called IResourceStream. this interface makes pretty good sense since an > IResource without a content type is not all that useful. if no content > type is available for the IResourceStream, it could just return null. i > think this is a LOT better than renaming > Resource/WebResource/SharedResource, because these really are wicket > framework resources and a different name will only confuse end-users > about their intent. so IResourceStream would be about raw resource > streams with a content type. given this, we simply rename > AbstractResource to AbstractResourceStream. > > sound good? > > Johan Compagner wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I find the resources classes we have here in wicket very confusing.. > > Because we have a IResource interface. and a AbstractResource class > > which implement the interface > > But we also have an abstract class Resource but that isn't a IResource > > but a IResourceListener. > > > > This is a bit confusing naming. > > I think the Resource class that has a method getResource() (that > > returns a IResource) is a ResourceLocator > > So i think that the Resource class should be renamed to > > ResourceLocator and all subclasses like WebResource > > and SharedResource should also be called: WebResourceLocator and > > SharedResourceLocator.. > > > > The problem is that we already have a ResourceLocator class... that > > also returns IResource objects.. > > So maybe Resource->ResourceHolder? > > > > johan > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > > _______________________________________________ > > Wicket-develop mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide > Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. > Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-develop mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
