I haven't looked into great detail about the constructor changes in 2.0 but if 2.0 is more elegant or has a better architecture I'm all for the way it does things. I fancy better engineering and can usually "get over" inconveniences caused by API incompatibilities but then again I had Borland C++ OWL 1.0 projects that had to get ported to OWL 2 when it came out - coincidently the major changes in version 2.0 of that API involved around the introduction of template (generics) based containers instead of the Object based ones - 'de ja vu' with a 12 year delay!
Is there any possibility that 'backwards compatible' deprecated constructors can be used to avoid breaking any existing code? Obviously all new code should use the new constructors but the version 2.0 API might be able to provide backwards compatible constructors also, a least in the short term, to allow existing projects to integrate with the new API 'right out of the box'. Not sure if this is possible or already discussed but I thought I'd throw this idea in the ring just in case no one had thought of it yet. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
