[X] No, keep IModel detachable.
.. i did once a refactoring to build an IReadonlyModel,and failed. I failed
because of the limited feature set of the java language. So you will end up
with some kind of compromise,which is not near a perfect solution.
Maybe there is a much better way to handle this leaky request/response
abstraction... But IMHO removing IDetachable will not be a step in this
direction.
Michael:)
Mit AquaMail Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com gesendet
Am 4. April 2017 5:25:05 vorm. schrieb Pedro Santos <pedros...@gmail.com>:
Hi
Emond,
TL;DR Vote at the bottom
What does it mean? That your email can be skipped to the voting part or
that I was prolix in my last email?
I think we are not going to agree on this proposal.
No problem. Having different opinions being discussed is just a sign of a
healthy project.
Carl,
Indeed, and it's really nice to get you option on this. I also see this as
a tradeoff situation.
Martijn,
models only live during
actual request processing
They live longer. They even implement IClusterable (IDetachable's
superinterface) to do so. IClusterable being IDetachable's superinterface
is a living paradox for me.
[x] Yes, remove IDetachable from IModel
Pedro Santos
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote:
While I appreciate the effort in questioning our fundamentals and
trying to improve even the oldest parts of our API, I don't think that
the detach method is semantically wrong for models. Semantics are
defined by what we say the semantics are. In a request/response
oriented environment a detach is an essential part of the lifecycle of
a request in general, and for models in particular.
Were Wicket a Swing framework, I would consider modifying the API, but
as Wicket lives in an environment where the models only live during
actual request processing, and are literally detached otherwise,
IModel implementations should have detach behavior, and therefore the
framework must guarantee that it can call the detach logic at
appropriate times. Therefore IModels *are* IDetachable.
So I don't think we should remove IDetachable from IModel as it is an
essential, integral and semantically correct part of models.
[X] No, keep IModel detachable.
Martijn
On Mon, Apr 3, 2017 at 9:38 AM, Emond Papegaaij
<emond.papega...@topicus.nl> wrote:
> Something went wrong sending this mail. I did write some more, but
somehow my
> mail client lost it. So here's the vote again:
>
> I think we are not going to agree on this proposal. I think it is not an
> improvement and I do not agree with you that IModel should not be
> detachable by default. So lets vote on this.
>
> [ ] Yes, remove IDetachable from IModel
> [ ] No, keep IModel detachable
>
> My vote:
> -1 keep IModel detachable
>
> Best regards,
> Emond
>
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
