+1 for 1.2 (with depricated but working add) +1 for 2.0 (with removed add method)
This will ensure that the old ways are still working. Jesper P. On 1/17/06, Ari Suutari <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > -1 for 1.2 > +1 for 2.0 > > I understand that not having parent information available is painful > (I have hit it sometimes myself) but: > > We have already an application which has more than 300 wicket pages. > This would force us to re-visit all that code again. Not very nice, since: > > - we need 1.2 features for some ajax-thingies > - part of application is supposed to go production in next months. > > I think it would be acceptable to provide a new constructor with parent > but keep the old approach around, but deprecate it (it could be removed in > 2.0). > > I have also used reparenting (which now would be impossible). An example > of this is a shared "property panel", which is attached to different rows of > listview > depenending on user's actions. I could work around this (and it might be a > good idea > to change it) but I mention it here as an example use case. > > Too much refactoring is will hurt wicket. I would consider good API policy > (at least sometime in the future when wicket is more mature) to keep API > as unchanged as possible between minor releases. > > Ari S. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eelco Hillenius" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net> > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:39 PM > Subject: Re: [Wicket-develop] remove add() and pass parent in constructor? > > > > Furthermore, we have been discussing on, if we are implementing this > > change, /when/ we are going to do it. > > > > Basically the options are between 2.0 in a few months or 1.2 now. I > > would be for doing it right away. It might hurt a bit for people > > working on HEAD now, but compared to 1.1 there already have been a > > couple of API breaks. Furthermore, you'll reap the benefits earlier, > > we have less trouble supporting versions and we can write Wicket In > > Action using this. > > > > Eelco > > > > > > On 1/16/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> hello all, > >> we, the core devel group, have been discussing and evaluating a possible > >> change we would like to make for the next release and we would like your > >> input. > >> > >> the idea is to remove the Component.add(Component child) method and link > >> components via a constructor instead: Component(Component parent, String > >> id) > >> > >> this has a couple of advantages: > >> > >> * have access to markup the component is attached to in the constructor. > >> that means you can read attributes and initialize your component > >> appropriately. it also means we can eliminate the use of attribute > >> modifiers > >> for non-dynamic attribute replacement. > >> > >> * we can fail super-early if there is a mismatch between component and > >> markup hierachies. currently we dont fail until render time, with this > >> change we can fail in the Component constructor - so before the component > >> is > >> actually created. this will give you a line precise error in markup AND > >> java > >> code. > >> > >> * getPage() and getPath() will work in the component's constructor. this is > >> really nice for ajax stuff. > >> > >> the big disadvantage of course is that we will break ALL existing code. it > >> is a simple change to fix though. a hybrid of this and add() will not work > >> because all links in the chain need to use the new constructor for it to > >> work. > >> > >> we would also provide Component.remove() and Component.readd() which > >> remove/readd component to its parent. so the link between parent and child > >> is now managed on the child's side instead of the parent's side. this, of > >> course, makes it impossible to move components between parents - is there a > >> usecase for this? > >> > >> please provide us with feedback/concerns so we have a better feel for > >> requirements out there. > >> > >> thanks, > >> -Igor > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > > http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&opÌk > > _______________________________________________ > > Wicket-develop mailing list > > Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files > for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes > searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! > http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-develop mailing list > Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
