On Mar 6, 2007, at 2:12 PM, Eelco Hillenius wrote: > 1) Who uses 2.0 for serious projects?
I'm hoping to roll my project out over the next few weeks, it uses 2.0. I don't have a lot of pages though, so porting wouldn't be a problem. > 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. What about some hybrid of the two? My use case for this came yesterday, when I was wanting to add functionality for disabled <option> items in a DropDown. If I were to follow the pattern of creating all the constructor combinations for optional parameters, I would have had to add somewhere between 50-100% of the count of the constructors. IMHO, stuff like 'disabled' is secondary, and the meat of the component is the DropDown itself. This is to say I would not miss java line-precise errors for stuff that is considered secondary. (Ignore me if I am talking nonsense here...) > 3) If we would ever backtrack on the constructor change (*if*, don't > panic for now) how much trouble would that give you? It wouldn't be that big a deal for me. -b ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
