To summarize this: it's really only the constructor change that is in
question here. Whatever happens, the other features including generics
support will be in a version of Wicket, whether we call that 1.4 or
again 2.0.
The constructor change is the main reason why it is difficult to
maintain the two separate branches, and it is also the reason why some
got code nastier (though other pieces of code got better imo).
Eelco
On 3/8/07, Stefan Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dear wicket users,
>
> in my opinion the current discussion has 3 core themes
> 1. wicket 2 constructors vs. wicket 1.x constructors
> 2. generics at java 1.5 at all
> 3. the 2.0 model handleing vs. 1.x model handling
>
> Now i want to summarize the current discussion for each topic
>
> 1. Only one person mentioned possible problems going back to 1.x
> construkctor. They ware concerning ajax stuff but nearly all others said
> something like
> - I found noch things that I can't do wit 2.0 that can be done with 1.x
> - As the new features from 2.0 are backported to 1.x the opposite is true
> - The current wicket 2 users will have no big trouble to change the
> constructor back to 1.x style. It's some work to do but there is no
> functionality loss in their applicatons
> Conclusion: the constructor change itself seems not to be a problem for all
> wicket users. But as the constructor change was used as a synonyme for "drop
> wicket 2 at all" it seemde to be a big problem. My summary on constructor
> change is only focuses on the pure constructor change.
>
> 2. As I can see, nearly all wicket 2 users got accustomed to generics and do
> not want to drop the generics from thier application. The users that start to
> use annotatioins for wicket-spring integration will also not want to get lost
> of this. Maybe a java 5 wrapper around the un-generic 1.x classes may help
>
> package wicket.markaup....
> class Component {
>
> is wrapped by
>
> package wicket2.markup
> import wicket.markup
> class Component<T> extends Component{
>
> ore something similar. So the wicket 2.0 users can go on using gnerics. The
> wicket 2 users and perhaps some contributors of a minoir degree that do only
> generification of comonents may build such wrapper classes and report
> inconsistencys they detetct back to the core developers. Just an idea.
>
> 2. If the 2.0 model handling is backported to 1.3 oder 1.4 the same wrappers
> as for topic 2 may help.
>
> I like to work with wicket very much and I would do my part for generic
> wrappers if possible.
>
> Stefan Lindner
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
