Hi Matej,
I don't know how my suggestion is related to seriousness, you don't have
to question my Java 101.
I was specifically referring to your statement:
>ObjectModel sounds like a really good name to me because it says what
it does.
>Holds single object.
I thought you wanted to emphasize *single*, which doesn't fit for many
cases where Wicket components access a list of objects through their
model. I know that a collection object is still a single instance but
semantically it's 'many'. BTW we had this discussion about introducing a
specialized collection model a few months ago.
Every model provides access to an object, so the emphasis can't be on
*object* either.
If you want to stress the fact, that the current Model class *holds* an
object, then why don't you suggest to rename it to HoldModel?
Regards
Sven
Matej Knopp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 5:47 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote:
So ObjectModel will hold a single object only? What about lists and
collections?
Are you serious? A collection is still one instance. It doesn't matter
how many references it holds.
-Matej
IMHO the "Object.." prefix has no benefit.
Why not drop the Model class altogether?
Its static helper methods could be located in a new non-instantiable class
Models (note the trailing 's') because there's nothing more exciting the
Model class currently provides.
My 2 cents
Sven
Matej Knopp wrote:
Should we rename IModel to Model we would also have to rename Model to
something. ObjectModel sounds like a really good name to me because it
says what it does. Holds single object.
Locator sounds really weird. I think renaming Model to Locator would
be hell lot more confusing than renaming IModel to Model.
-Matej
On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Martin Grigorov <mcgreg...@e-card.bg>
wrote:
+1 for removing 'I'. I personally do like it but since this is what the
committers prefer than I'm fine.
-1 for renaming Model to anything else.
@Erik: it'd be interesting to be at a course of jWeekend where you'll
explain to the attendees "Wicket consists of components, models, ... and
the basic model is Locator (and all implementations end with **Model)".
I'll find it confusing.
I hope Wicket 1.5 will not rename all existing Model implementations.
A side note: some third party projects already depends on 'I' classes.
For example Terracotta depends on IClusterable for its Wicket module.
Take this into account as well.
El dom, 04-10-2009 a las 13:55 +0200, Erik van Oosten escribió:
I agree, the I is useless. Provided there is a good migration I'd say:
+1.
I also agree with Martin, lets change IModel to Locator while we're at
it!
Regards,
Erik.
Igor Vaynberg 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
