Also It brings extra learning curve process; i thinks that's the major update IModel will be Model ? himm
2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.kn...@gmail.com> > On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <alt...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5 ? > > It breaks compatibility > There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks > compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break > compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration > path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in > code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent > anyone from migrating application to 1.5. > > -Matej > > > > > -1 > > > > Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :) > > > > 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.kn...@gmail.com> > > > >> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I > >> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason. > >> > >> -Matej > >> > >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > -1 > >> > > >> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seij...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> +1 > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface names? wicket > >> >>> has been the only project i have ever worked on/used that follows > this > >> >>> convention, is it time for a change? > >> >>> > >> >>> this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention is teh > >> >>> aw3s0m3st, simply a discussion of whether or not we should switch. > >> >>> > >> >>> -igor > >> >>> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Altuğ. > > > -- Altuğ.
