Why does "code explosion" happen as a consequence of the constructor
change?Gili Igor Vaynberg wrote: > pros: > > * free to call any method in the constructor like getpage(), urlfor(), etc. > > * access to markup attributes in constructor as opposed to render time > > * fail at component instantiation time rather then render time if there > is a hierarchy<->java mismatch - so you get a java line-precise error as > opposed to our error webpage > > cons: > > * code explosion > 2.0: http://papernapkin.org/pastebin/view/4900 > 1.3: http://papernapkin.org/pastebin/view/4908 > <http://papernapkin.org/pastebin/view/4908> > > * hacks necessary for nontrivial components > GridView.populate() > http://papernapkin.org/pastebin/view/4902 > notice fake1,fake2 parents necessary for child item instantiation and > which are later removed > > * more limited in how the hierarchy is created since it MUST be created > top-down > > * replacing components is less explicit. > 1.3: a.replaceWith(new B()); > 2.0: new B(a.getParent(), a.getId()); > > -igor > > > > > On 3/6/07, *Jonathan Locke* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > i would like to see a list of what we'd lose by not supporting the > constructor change. i actually prefer the add() usage and always > have. i just don't want us to forget why we originally wanted to > make the constructor change. the only two things i can recall are: > > - better diagnostics, but i can't recall exactly /what/ diagnostics we > thought we'd get > > - ability to make component init dependent on parental > context. this might > be either xml association or component data somehow. i can't think > of any > times i've been screaming to do this, but can anyone give some of > the best > examples so we can evaluate what we'd be losing here? > > > Eelco Hillenius 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 > > <http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV> > > _______________________________________________ > > Wicket-user mailing list > > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > > http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9342589 > > <http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9342589> > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com > <http://Nabble.com>. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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 > > <http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV> > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
