My preference is for the 2nd, Ajax-flavour type. /Gwyn
On 29/08/05, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > About the naming of the ajax stuff we have now. It's still my first > take, and I'm not sure about the names I chose. I think now is just in > time to make that last naming changes if we would want that. > > We have packages: > > wicket.markup.html.ajax > wicket.markup.html.ajax.dojo > wicket.markup.html.ajax.scriptaculous > wicket.markup.html.ajax.... > > I think that's fine, and I'd like to keep that. But then there's: > > IEventRequestListener (which is completely internal btw) > IEventRequestHandler > AbstractEventRequestHandler > DojoEventRequestHandler > ValidationEventRequestHandler > etc.. > > But alternatively, we could have: > IAjaxListener > IAjaxHandler > AbstractAjaxHandler > DojoAjaxHandler > ValidationAjaxHandler > > What do you guys like better? > > Eelco ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is Sponsored by the Better Software Conference & EXPO September 19-22, 2005 * San Francisco, CA * Development Lifecycle Practices Agile & Plan-Driven Development * Managing Projects & Teams * Testing & QA Security * Process Improvement & Measurement * http://www.sqe.com/bsce5sf _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
