On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:33 PM, Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net> wrote: > Hi Matej, > > I don't know how my suggestion is related to seriousness, you don't have to > question my Java 101. I'm not questioning your Java 101. But in your previous email you basically suggested that ObjectModel can't hold a collection because I said it holds single object. > > 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. I didn't emphasize single. I just stated a fact. If i wanted to emphasize single I would have called it SingleObjectModel. Collection in java is an object. If I call something ObjectModel do you have any reason to assume that it can't hold a collection?
> > Every model provides access to an object, so the emphasis can't be on > *object* either. Every model provides access to an object but every model does it differently. If I see ObjectModel i would assume that it keeps reference to an object. I could have of course suggested ObjectReferenceKeepingModel but sometimes more concise class names are better... > > 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? Why would I want to do that? -Matej > > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> > >
