I'm in favor too of expanding Lambda adoption in Wicket. I remember some of this support was eventually moved to WicketStuff due to the memory concern, but I think it's better giving users the option to accept the right trade-off between memory consumption and a cleaner code.
On Wed, Jul 16, 2025 at 1:25 PM Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 15, 2025 at 3:12 PM Richard Eckart de Castilho <r...@apache.org > > > wrote: > > > Does the memory usage matter a lot? > > > Yes. In (large) applications typically there's a lot of components in > memory. > > I'll dig up some statistics from one of our production servers with a lot > of users. > > Wrt. the this pointer: yeah, that sometimes comes up. However, most of the > > time > > > I fill in method handles anyway. In those cases where I don't I typically > > assign > > the component to a variable that I can use inside the lambda instead of > > the this. > > I had also thought of passing in the component as an argument to the > > lambda. > > > > The issue is that each lambda takes a reference which increases the > footprint of Component considerably. For a stateful serverside web > framework we can't ignore this. > > Joined the ASF channel ;) > > > > Do you think this is something limited to Wicket Bootstrap? Or would you > > just > > want to explore the concepts in that space before considering them for > > Wicket Core? > > > > It just came up in that channel. No particular reason. > > For whether or not it belongs to wicket proper? I dunno, but that is > something we should start discussing to get some new life in the project > other than the odd bugfix. The programming model hasn't really changed > since Java 5, so we're due a refresh. > > Martijn > -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.
