On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 11:25 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote: > I recommend you to use Wicket 7.0.0-M2 for new development. > It is quite stable! I use it for a personal applications. > The benefit is that some of these things are improved there (e.g. p.1) and > it is possible to make more radical changes. Changing the default behavior > for p.2 will make Wicket's HTML not so *ugly* but will break many > applications in production. No matter how ugly is the generated code I'll > veto such change in 6.x.
Yup. 6.x should not pull the rug underneath existing users. > About the non technical part. > I also have concerns about the way you express your opinion. English is not > my native language and I may misunderstood the meaning of some parts but I > find your language a bit harsh. Please try to avoid doing this. It is strongly opinionated, especially given that it touches about the only two places where Wicket does this. Could it be worded differently, certainly. I do feel this comes from the right place: Wicket should walk the path of least surprise. In 2004-2005 when Wicket was envisioned, the link/checkbox behaviour was about what you'd expect of a web framework. Come 2010- the current behaviour doesn't meet expectations–it should be reversed for these two points (enable extension, but have default be non-modifying) Martijn
