> Okay, here's my opinion: > > People have been using Wicket for years now and this is the first bug > of this type I have heard of. I am very reluctant attempt any sort of > generic framework-level "fix" to the semantics of Java object construction > (regardless of how anyone feels about the practices defined by the JLS).
All OO languages share similar semantics of object construction and the same issues arise when attempting to use partially constructed objects in any of them so it's not an issue specific to Java object construction. It's a 20 year old problem that has been solved time and time again in many different OO languages and different frameworks by using a two phase initialization pattern but if you've found a way to fix the getVariation issue without resorting to a two phase initialization pattern then that's great - let me at it!!! Like I said, that's the only issue I need to have fixed right now. > Java objects construct the way that they do and we use Java object > constructors because we like that simplicity. Your bug is reported and > will be fixed. Any time schedule for that? "Back in my day we didn't need Tapestry, or Wicket or WebObjects, or even Servlets, or for that matter Java! We just coded in plain assembly language. And before that we had to just type in 1's and 0's. Sometimes we didn't even have 1's. I once had to code for an entire month, barefoot, in the dead of winter, using just 0's... but you didn't hear me complaining." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
