On Wed, 2007-03-07 at 00:52 +0100, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > The biggest problem I see is a matter of economics. Current > applications can't be upgraded to the constructor change economically. > Too much has to change to move in that direction.
I am one of the early adopters that will have to move in the reverse direction should the Constructor change be taken out of 2.0. Would it be possible to depreciate the constructors that require the parent? Other than that, I *love* generified components and models in wicket 2.0. You'd have to pry those from my cold, dead fingers. > I do like the programming model, although I haven't used it in a > production system (as I am doing with 1.x). > > Having the model changes in 1.x will result in a lot of work, but not > nearly as much as the c'tor change. The api changes will be less > intrusive as you'll likely have less custom models than components. > > Wicket 2.0 is a beast and hard to support, especially since to support > software in a good way, you need to eat your own dog food. > > One other thing: moving to Apache usually requires you to move the > code base into the org.apache namespace. We opted to do that for 2.x > only, as the API is already broken. In the remote possibility of > freezing further development on 2.x, we should see what we need to do > in the org.apache realm for 1.x > > If/when we need to make a decision between 1.x and 2.x, I'd rather > drop 2.x and continue with 1.x then drop 1.x in favor of 2.x. > > Martijn > > On 3/6/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > > > > -- Philip A. Chapman Desktop and Web Application Development: Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
