Hi, im not yet using 2.0 for a serious project, but spent much time as it should be a future technology here. What me worries is the inconsistence in the way the dev now is handled... I mean, the 2.0 Style Constructor is not bad - it needs rethinking and some time more code, but also makes (IMHO) the code better understandable and avoids this ugly stupid chaining with .add() - allows direct access of the markup etc.
I mainly focused on 2.0 as i wanted the JDK1.5 features - generics + easier session by self referencing etc. - of course, you stumble into downsides as well, like the "unlogic" (to me) way to now replace a component by another one... Whatever you do with 2.0 (even if it means work for me) - if you do it, then right and no way back: so please decide to keep or drop it ! - and then do it within a deadline you publish out, so no users are confused and please dont go the T***** way where every new version is a completely new thing... compability is important (some small api breaks are ok, but not too big ones without providing alternatives - so think also for future needs in design concerning the constructor). Also please if you decide to not use the new constructor go on a JDK1.5 solo dev path soon (do a 2.0 release -with or without constructor change - in need for 1.5 and dont backport things to 1.X as this will lead that most users will never look at the new version but stick to their path as they still get some candy) - we already have JDK1.6 out and when jdk 1.7 is out you should at least be at 1.5 level IMHO - if sb. is sitting on 1.4 he has a problem (even some are still on 1.3 or 1.2!) but also can use the old wicket versions; these are my thoughts Korbinian > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Im Auftrag > von Eelco Hillenius > Gesendet: Dienstag, 6. März 2007 23:13 > An: Wicket User List > Betreff: [Wicket-user] IMPORTANT: your opinion on the > constructor change in2.0 > > Hi, > > We (Wicket's developers) are having some discussion over 1.3 > vs 2.0 and how difficult it is as a nun-funded project to > spend so much time synchronizing the branches. > > A major issue in the discussion is that not everyone is > convinced anymore that the constructor change in 2.0 is for > the better. There are pros and cons for sure, but we want to > get your opinion on this. > > Please help us out giving your opinion. We want to know: > > 1) Who uses 2.0 for serious projects? > > 2) What do you think of the constructor change? Do you prefer > 1.3's add style or 2.0's style of passing in the parent > construction time. > > 3) If we would ever backtrack on the constructor change > (*if*, don't panic for now) how much trouble would that give you? > > Please don't be shy giving your opinion. This is an important > issue in the future development of Wicket. > > Regards, > > Eelco > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > ----------- > Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join > SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to > share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief > surveys-and earn cash > http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge &CID=DEVDEV > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
