On Thu, Oct 9, 2025 at 9:46 PM Richard Eckart de Castilho <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Facilitating alternative ways of doing something doesn't mean the old / > low-level > approaches have to go away. I'm using quite a bit of lambdas with Wicket > without having > changed a single line of code in the core framework (although I have > Lambda* variations of > several key classes and components). Thing is, if I find this useful, > maybe others will too. > And what's the point of each of use maintaining our own versions of such > lambda helpers and > utilities. > > Let's figure out what ideas people have and where they best may go - be it > Wicketstuff, > a core extension, or the core itself. Mind that while the the core already > does have a > lambda support in a (very) few places, e.g. LambdaModel, nobody is force > to use it. > But it is there and it is at times quite useful. > > Cheerio, > > -- Richard > > I agree with Richard. Lambdas are now more than 10 years old and I think we experienced both pros and cos of this language idiom. I think it can be useful for Wicket users if we expand lambdas adoption in a non-intrusive way. Just like Martijn I'd like to introduce one or more builders to offer a fluent API for the most common needs. I've sketched some code for a behavior builder that should bring this kind of improvement. If you like to take a look is here: https://github.com/apache/wicket/compare/master...bitstorm:wicket:lambda_spicing -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.
