Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, > Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in the markup? I'm not completely sure that component queuing could lead to a more maintainable code. Reflecting component hierarchy in Java code might seem an additional burden, but I have the feeling that "flatting" this hierarchy with component queuing makes debugging and trouble shooting harder as it's more difficult to understand what contains what. my 2 cents. > having missed the introduction of component queuing, I was surprise now how many places were touched by it - take a look at the size of the commit, that's insane for a mere convenience feature. That's right, component queuing should have been provided in a more modular fashion, without touching so many parts of the framework. On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:31 PM Sven Meier wrote: > Hi, > > having missed the introduction of component queuing, I was surprise now > how many places were touched by it - take a look at the size of the > commit, that's insane for a mere convenience feature. > > > Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined > in the markup? > > Maybe if Wicket had offered component queuing from the beginning, we'd > had a better solution available. > > Regards > Sven > > > On 03.06.21 15:52, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrew Geery > wrote: > > > >> I personally find queueing really useful. > >> > >> I'm curious why people aren't using it. > >> > >> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in > >> the markup? > >> > > well, it is all in the code > > see Sven's commit at > > > https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/adbf35e6176ea69a36e5c7eaf1f514fac99cb91e > > it adds complexity and fails at random corner cases > > and no one wants to maintain this extra complexity and add more on top > of it > > > > > >> Thanks > >> Andrew > >> > >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Ernesto, > >>> > >>> if you want to do some tests: > >>> > >>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing > >>> > >>> Have fun > >>> Sven > >>> > >>> On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > Hi, > > > > I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite > > simple. > > > > > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. > >>> and a > large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. > > Regards > > Sven > > > > > > On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov < > mgrigo...@apache.org > > wrote: > >>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > >>> reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Hi Martin, > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > >>> Removing the component queueing ? > >>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > >>> Why do you ask ? > >>> > >> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because > of > > this > >> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. > >> Now > >>> it > >> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I > >>> was > >> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to > >> remove > >> something that is almost working in all cases. > >> > -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, having missed the introduction of component queuing, I was surprise now how many places were touched by it - take a look at the size of the commit, that's insane for a mere convenience feature. > Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in the markup? Maybe if Wicket had offered component queuing from the beginning, we'd had a better solution available. Regards Sven On 03.06.21 15:52, Martin Grigorov wrote: On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrew Geery wrote: I personally find queueing really useful. I'm curious why people aren't using it. Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in the markup? well, it is all in the code see Sven's commit at https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/adbf35e6176ea69a36e5c7eaf1f514fac99cb91e it adds complexity and fails at random corner cases and no one wants to maintain this extra complexity and add more on top of it Thanks Andrew On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier wrote: Hi Ernesto, if you want to do some tests: https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing Have fun Sven On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: Hi, I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite simple. Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. and a large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. Regards Sven On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Martin, How much work do you think this will imply? Removing the component queueing ? I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. Why do you ask ? It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove something that is almost working in all cases.
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrew Geery wrote: > I personally find queueing really useful. > > I'm curious why people aren't using it. > > Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in > the markup? > well, it is all in the code see Sven's commit at https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/adbf35e6176ea69a36e5c7eaf1f514fac99cb91e it adds complexity and fails at random corner cases and no one wants to maintain this extra complexity and add more on top of it > > Thanks > Andrew > > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier wrote: > > > Hi Ernesto, > > > > if you want to do some tests: > > > > https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing > > > > Have fun > > Sven > > > > On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > >> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite > > >> simple. > > >> > > >> > > > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. > > and a > > > large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. > > > > > > Regards > > >> Sven > > >> > > >> > > >> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > > > >> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > > > Removing the component queueing ? > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > > Why do you ask ? > > > > >>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > > >> this > > >>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. > Now > > it > > >>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I > > was > > >>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to > remove > > >>> something that is almost working in all cases. > > >>> > > > > > >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
I personally find queueing really useful. I'm curious why people aren't using it. Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in the markup? Thanks Andrew On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier wrote: > Hi Ernesto, > > if you want to do some tests: > > https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing > > Have fun > Sven > > On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > > >> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite > >> simple. > >> > >> > > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. > and a > > large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. > > > > Regards > >> Sven > >> > >> > >> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > >> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > Removing the component queueing ? > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > Why do you ask ? > > >>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > >> this > >>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now > it > >>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I > was > >>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove > >>> something that is almost working in all cases. > >>> > > >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi Ernesto, if you want to do some tests: https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing Have fun Sven On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: Hi, I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite simple. Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. and a large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. Regards Sven On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Martin, How much work do you think this will imply? Removing the component queueing ? I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. Why do you ask ? It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove something that is almost working in all cases.
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, > I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite > simple. > > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. and a large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch. Regards > > Sven > > > On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > >> reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Martin, > >>> > >>> How much work do you think this will imply? > >>> > >> Removing the component queueing ? > >> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > >> Why do you ask ? > >> > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > this > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was > > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove > > something that is almost working in all cases. > > > -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite simple. Regards Sven On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Martin, How much work do you think this will imply? Removing the component queueing ? I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. Why do you ask ? It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove something that is almost working in all cases.
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
I am not sure how to react on this '+1'. Martin Terra, you requested this feature and then never bothered to upgrade to something newer than 1.4. Sorry, but your votes don't count anymore! :-) Martin: I fully agree with you. How this feature was introduced can, at least, be called "weird". Fwiw, I think the basic idea ( not having to adjust java code when changing the nesting of markup tags) is a sound one. I've personally never witnessed any of those edge-cases where component queuing is not working properly... but then again, we have a very old (10+ years) Wicket application with a lot of code that never got touched after component queuing got introduced (and most devs here kind of stuck with the old habit of just using Component#add()). A wild guess as I don't know about the actual performance impact this feature has: Compared to the slowdown caused by single-threaded Page access or the fact that most useful code will at some point hit a database/external REST API/whatever, it's probably miniscule and IMHO by itself not too convincing as an argument for the removal of this feature. Just my 2 cents, Tobias -- Tobias Gierke Software Developer Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99 Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:58 AM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > Hi, > > What I mean is to do a table of pros VS cons of dropping this feature. For > instance, I just remember someone did a profiling of his application and > reported that wicket (in his application) was slower after this feature was > introduced (a pro of removing it, maybe wicket will be faster). All > the work to get rid of it (a con). > Do you offer to do this comparison ? I do offer to remove it because of the following reasons: - in the earlier mails just one person said that he uses it. To make the poll more statistically accurate we could ask in users@ and at Twitter too - almost no one from the Wicket dev team knows how this works internally. Only Andrea tries to fix bugs in this functionality. I believe Igor lost interest in Wicket (and open source, in general) because of the Component Queueing - component queueing and auto-components don't work well. Much more people use auto-components (anything > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:43 AM Martin Terra < > martin.te...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote: > > > ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reier...@gmail.com > ) > > kirjoitti: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Removing the component queueing ? > > > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > > > > Why do you ask ? > > > > > > > > > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > > this > > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now > it > > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I > was > > > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove > > > something that is almost working in all cases. > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > > -- > > > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > > > > > > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, > > > > > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > > this > > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now > it > > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I > was > > > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove > > > something that is almost working in all cases. > > > > > > > +1 > > > > I am not sure how to react on this '+1'. > Martin Terra, you requested this feature and then never bothered to upgrade > to something newer than 1.4. > Sorry, but your votes don't count anymore! :-) > Martin: I fully agree with you. How this feature was introduced can, at least, be called "weird". -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:44 AM Martin Terra < martin.te...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote: > ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reier...@gmail.com) > kirjoitti: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > > > > > > > > Removing the component queueing ? > > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > > > Why do you ask ? > > > > > > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > this > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was > > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove > > something that is almost working in all cases. > > > > +1 > I am not sure how to react on this '+1'. Martin Terra, you requested this feature and then never bothered to upgrade to something newer than 1.4. Sorry, but your votes don't count anymore! :-) > > > > > -- > > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, What I mean is to do a table of pros VS cons of dropping this feature. For instance, I just remember someone did a profiling of his application and reported that wicket (in his application) was slower after this feature was introduced (a pro of removing it, maybe wicket will be faster). All the work to get rid of it (a con). On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:43 AM Martin Terra < martin.te...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote: > ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reier...@gmail.com) > kirjoitti: > > > Hi, > > > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > > wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > > > > > > > > Removing the component queueing ? > > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > > > Why do you ask ? > > > > > > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of > this > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was > > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove > > something that is almost working in all cases. > > > > +1 > > > > > -- > > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > > -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reier...@gmail.com) kirjoitti: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov > wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > > > > > Removing the component queueing ? > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > > Why do you ask ? > > > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove > something that is almost working in all cases. > +1 > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi Martin, > > > > How much work do you think this will imply? > > > > Removing the component queueing ? > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. > Why do you ask ? > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove something that is almost working in all cases. -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Martin, > > How much work do you think this will imply? > Removing the component queueing ? I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it. Why do you ask ? > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:18 PM Martin Grigorov > wrote: > > > It seems most people prefer to keep s. > > There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry > > Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10. > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs > wrote: > > > > > We also use enclosure quite a bit > > > Never used the queue feature > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l > > > > > > > > 804 > > > > > > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l > > > > > > > > 369 > > > > > > > > 0 uses of queue( > > > > > > > > Roughly 800 pages. > > > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke < > > > tobias.gie...@voipfuture.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. > > > > > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a > very > > > > > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features. > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > Tobias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < > > > > > francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > >> > > > > > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing > > > > > >> > > > > > >> Kind regards, > > > > > >> François > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > > reier...@gmail.com> > > > > > a écrit : > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > > > > > >>> > > > > tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing > > (+1), > > > > > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> — Martin's list — > > > > > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove > > > wicket-http2-jetty > > > > > / > > > > > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / > wicket-http2-core > > (I > > > > > would > > > > > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > > > > > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is > > used > > > > > rarely > > > > > >>>> over other reporting frameworks) > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move > > > things > > > > > to > > > > > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core > features. > > > E.g. > > > > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct? > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> kind regards > > > > > >>>> > > > > > >>>> Tobias > > > > > >>>> > > > &g
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi Martin, How much work do you think this will imply? On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:18 PM Martin Grigorov wrote: > It seems most people prefer to keep s. > There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry > Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10. > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs wrote: > > > We also use enclosure quite a bit > > Never used the queue feature > > > > > > Regards, > > > > On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst > > wrote: > > > > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l > > > > > > 804 > > > > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l > > > > > > 369 > > > > > > 0 uses of queue( > > > > > > Roughly 800 pages. > > > > > > Martijn > > > > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke < > > tobias.gie...@voipfuture.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. > > > > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very > > > > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features. > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Tobias > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < > > > > francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing > > > > >> > > > > >> Kind regards, > > > > >> François > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > > reier...@gmail.com> > > > > a écrit : > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Hi, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > > > > >>> > > > tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing > (+1), > > > > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> — Martin's list — > > > > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove > > wicket-http2-jetty > > > > / > > > > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core > (I > > > > would > > > > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > > > > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is > used > > > > rarely > > > > >>>> over other reporting frameworks) > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move > > things > > > > to > > > > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. > > E.g. > > > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> kind regards > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Tobias > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > > > > >>>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > > > > >>>>> Hi, > > > > >>>>> > > > > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few > places. > > > > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup > > containers > > > > holding > > > > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and > > boilerplatecode > > > > for > > > > >>>> us. > > > > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
It seems most people prefer to keep s. There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10. That's alright, everyone that maintains a project as old as Wicket is well-advised to trim some fat once in a while ;) Thanks for all the work, Tobias On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs wrote: We also use enclosure quite a bit Never used the queue feature Regards, On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst wrote: *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l 804 *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l 369 0 uses of queue( Roughly 800 pages. Martijn On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke < tobias.gie...@voipfuture.com> wrote: Hi, We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features. Cheers, Tobias -Matt Pavlovich On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: I don't use enclosures and component queueing Kind regards, François Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> a écrit : Hi, On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: Hi everyone, from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points — Martin's list — 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would prefer doing it in 10 over 9) 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely over other reporting frameworks) I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. things like treetables and so on. Correct? kind regards Tobias Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: Hi, we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for us. Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed Best, KB - Ursprüngliche Mail - Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" An: dev@wicket.apache.org Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas Hi, On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing Have fun Sven On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on Wicket 10 ? Here are few ideas what to break :-) 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 should be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use Java 8 for some reason. Regards, Martin -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro -- Tobias Gierke Software Developer Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99 Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086 -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
It seems most people prefer to keep s. There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10. On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs wrote: > We also use enclosure quite a bit > Never used the queue feature > > > Regards, > > On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst > wrote: > > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l > > > > 804 > > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l > > > > 369 > > > > 0 uses of queue( > > > > Roughly 800 pages. > > > > Martijn > > > > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke < > tobias.gie...@voipfuture.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. > > > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very > > > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Tobias > > > > > > > > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < > > > francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing > > > >> > > > >> Kind regards, > > > >> François > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < > reier...@gmail.com> > > > a écrit : > > > >>> > > > >>> Hi, > > > >>> > > > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > > > >>> > > tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), > > > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > > > >>>> > > > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > > > >>>> > > > >>>> — Martin's list — > > > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove > wicket-http2-jetty > > > / > > > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I > > > would > > > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > > > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used > > > rarely > > > >>>> over other reporting frameworks) > > > >>>> > > > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move > things > > > to > > > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. > E.g. > > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct? > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> kind regards > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Tobias > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > > > >>>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > > > >>>>> Hi, > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. > > > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup > containers > > > holding > > > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and > boilerplatecode > > > for > > > >>>> us. > > > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE > is now > > > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed > > > >>>>> Best, > > > >>>>> KB > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> - Ursprüngliche Mail - > > > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > > > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org > > > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > > > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > > > >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
We also use enclosure quite a bit Never used the queue feature Regards, On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst wrote: > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l > > 804 > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l > > 369 > > 0 uses of queue( > > Roughly 800 pages. > > Martijn > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. > > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very > > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features. > > > > Cheers, > > Tobias > > > > > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < > > francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing > > >> > > >> Kind regards, > > >> François > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > a écrit : > > >>> > > >>> Hi, > > >>> > > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > > >>> > tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hi everyone, > > >>>> > > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), > > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > > >>>> > > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > > >>>> > > >>>> — Martin's list — > > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty > > / > > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I > > would > > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used > > rarely > > >>>> over other reporting frameworks) > > >>>> > > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things > > to > > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> kind regards > > >>>> > > >>>> Tobias > > >>>> > > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > > >>>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > > >>>>> Hi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. > > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers > > holding > > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode > > for > > >>>> us. > > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now > > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed > > >>>>> Best, > > >>>>> KB > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> - Ursprüngliche Mail - > > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org > > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > > >>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Have fun > > >>>>>>> Sven > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > >>>>>>>> Hi, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > > thinking/working > > >>>> on > > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ? > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > > >>>> covered > > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it > > is > > >>>> going > > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > > >>>> Wicket > > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java > > 17 > > >>>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > > still > > >>>> use > > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> Regards, > > >>>>>>>> Martin > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -- > > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > >>>> > > >>> -- > > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > > > -- > > Tobias Gierke > > Software Developer > > > > Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany > > Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99 > > Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert > > Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086 > > > > > > > > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
*➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l 804 *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l 369 0 uses of queue( Roughly 800 pages. Martijn On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke wrote: > Hi, > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features. > > Cheers, > Tobias > > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < > francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> François > >> > >> > >> > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > a écrit : > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > >>> tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > >>>> > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > >>>> > >>>> — Martin's list — > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty > / > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I > would > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used > rarely > >>>> over other reporting frameworks) > >>>> > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things > to > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct? > >>> > >>> > >>>> kind regards > >>>> > >>>> Tobias > >>>> > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > >>>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers > holding > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode > for > >>>> us. > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> KB > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> - Ursprüngliche Mail - > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Have fun > >>>>>>> Sven > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > thinking/working > >>>> on > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > >>>> covered > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it > is > >>>> going > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > >>>> Wicket > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java > 17 > >>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > still > >>>> use > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > -- > Tobias Gierke > Software Developer > > Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany > Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99 > Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert > Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086 > > > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features. Cheers, Tobias -Matt Pavlovich On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet wrote: I don't use enclosures and component queueing Kind regards, François Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro a écrit : Hi, On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko mailto:tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: Hi everyone, from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points — Martin's list — 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would prefer doing it in 10 over 9) 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely over other reporting frameworks) I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. things like treetables and so on. Correct? kind regards Tobias Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: Hi, we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for us. Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed Best, KB - Ursprüngliche Mail - Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" An: dev@wicket.apache.org Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas Hi, On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing Have fun Sven On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on Wicket 10 ? Here are few ideas what to break :-) 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 should be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use Java 8 for some reason. Regards, Martin -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro -- Tobias Gierke Software Developer Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99 Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
On 11/05/2021 1:17 pm, Martin Terra wrote: We're still on Wicket 1.4, Now, I don't feel so bad about us still being on Wicket 6! :) But we've got big plans to move to Wicket 7 soon :) We started on Wicket 1.4 many years ago but moved to 6 quite some time ago - from memory it wasn't very hard to migrate though an employee did it, not I was shielded from any pain :)
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
We're still on Wicket 1.4, we find enclosures convenient and we don't have access to queuing (though we originally requested for it). What would matter to us is rendering performance/efficiency. So far upgrading has been more effort than it's worth to justify, but it's been fun watching the speed of upgrades. Keep it up ;) ** Martin ti 11. toukok. 2021 klo 5.05 Chris Colman (chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com) kirjoitti: > Queuing - have not used it yet. Never really had a problem with 'adding' > components in the traditional way. Sometimes when we change > layouts/component hierarchies I feel that most of these changes are non > trivial and the queuing feature may not have helped in these scenarios > anyway. Sounds ok for the simple layout changes though. > > Enclosures - widespread use of these in our apps. I find them very > convenient. > > On 11/05/2021 6:23 am, Matt Pavlovich wrote: > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. > > > > -Matt Pavlovich > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet < > francois.meil...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> François > >> > >> > >> > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > a écrit : > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > >>> tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi everyone, > >>>> > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > >>>> > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > >>>> > >>>> — Martin's list — > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty > / > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I > would > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used > rarely > >>>> over other reporting frameworks) > >>>> > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things > to > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct? > >>> > >>> > >>>> kind regards > >>>> > >>>> Tobias > >>>> > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > >>>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > >>>>> Hi, > >>>>> > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers > holding > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode > for > >>>> us. > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed > >>>>> Best, > >>>>> KB > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> - Ursprüngliche Mail - > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Have fun > >>>>>>> Sven > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > thinking/working > >>>> on > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > >>>> covered > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it > is > >>>> going > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > >>>> Wicket > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java > 17 > >>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > still > >>>> use > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Regards, > >>>>>>>> Martin > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Queuing - have not used it yet. Never really had a problem with 'adding' components in the traditional way. Sometimes when we change layouts/component hierarchies I feel that most of these changes are non trivial and the queuing feature may not have helped in these scenarios anyway. Sounds ok for the simple layout changes though. Enclosures - widespread use of these in our apps. I find them very convenient. On 11/05/2021 6:23 am, Matt Pavlovich wrote: We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. -Matt Pavlovich On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet wrote: I don't use enclosures and component queueing Kind regards, François Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro a écrit : Hi, On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko mailto:tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: Hi everyone, from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points — Martin's list — 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would prefer doing it in 10 over 9) 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely over other reporting frameworks) I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. things like treetables and so on. Correct? kind regards Tobias Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: Hi, we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for us. Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed Best, KB - Ursprüngliche Mail - Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" An: dev@wicket.apache.org Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas Hi, On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing Have fun Sven On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on Wicket 10 ? Here are few ideas what to break :-) 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 should be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use Java 8 for some reason. Regards, Martin -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
We do not use enclosures or component queueing either. -Matt Pavlovich > On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet > wrote: > > I don't use enclosures and component queueing > > Kind regards, > François > > > >> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro a >> écrit : >> >> Hi, >> >> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko >> > <mailto:tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: >> >>> Hi everyone, >>> >>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), >>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). >>> >>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points >>> >>> — Martin's list — >>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / >>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would >>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) >>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely >>> over other reporting frameworks) >>> >> >> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to >> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. >> things like treetables and so on. Correct? >> >> >>> kind regards >>> >>> Tobias >>> >>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < >>> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: >>>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. >>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding >>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for >>> us. >>>> >>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now >>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> KB >>>> >>>> >>>> - Ursprüngliche Mail - >>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" >>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org >>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 >>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Have fun >>>>>> Sven >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working >>> on >>>>>>> Wicket 10 ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** >>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is >>> covered >>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x >>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is >>> going >>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect >>> Wicket >>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 >>>>>> should >>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still >>> use >>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>> Martin >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 01:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > > Hi, > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), > > enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > > > > In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > > > > — Martin's list — > > 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / > > wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would > > prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > > 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely > > over other reporting frameworks) > > > > I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to > wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. > things like treetables and so on. Correct? I would start dropping wicketstuff modules :)) Too much of them > > > > kind regards > > > > Tobias > > > > > Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > > korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. > > Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding > > the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for > > us. > > > > > > Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now > > definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed > > > > > > Best, > > > KB > > > > > > > > > - Ursprüngliche Mail - > > >> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > > >> An: dev@wicket.apache.org > > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > > >> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > > > > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > > >> > > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > >>> > > >> > > >> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> Have fun > > >>> Sven > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > >>>> Hi, > > >>>> > > >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working > > on > > >>>> Wicket 10 ? > > >>>> > > >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > > covered > > >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > > going > > >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > > Wicket > > >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > > >>> should > > >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still > > use > > >>>> Java 8 for some reason. > > >>>> > > >>>> Regards, > > >>>> Martin > > >>>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > > > > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro -- Best regards, Maxim
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
I don't use enclosures and component queueing Kind regards, François > Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro a > écrit : > > Hi, > > On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko > <mailto:tobiassolosche...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote: > >> Hi everyone, >> >> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), >> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). >> >> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points >> >> — Martin's list — >> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / >> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would >> prefer doing it in 10 over 9) >> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely >> over other reporting frameworks) >> > > I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to > wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. > things like treetables and so on. Correct? > > >> kind regards >> >> Tobias >> >>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < >> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. >> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding >> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for >> us. >>> >>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now >> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed >>> >>> Best, >>> KB >>> >>> >>> - Ursprüngliche Mail - >>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" >>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org >>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 >>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: >>>> >>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Have fun >>>>> Sven >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working >> on >>>>>> Wicket 10 ? >>>>>> >>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) >>>>>> >>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** >>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is >> covered >>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x >>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is >> going >>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect >> Wicket >>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 >>>>> should >>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still >> use >>>>>> Java 8 for some reason. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Martin >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >> >> > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko wrote: > Hi everyone, > > from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), > enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). > > In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points > > — Martin's list — > 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / > wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would > prefer doing it in 10 over 9) > 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely > over other reporting frameworks) > I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g. things like treetables and so on. Correct? > kind regards > > Tobias > > > Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl < > korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de>: > > > > Hi, > > > > we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. > Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding > the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for > us. > > > > Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now > definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed > > > > Best, > > KB > > > > > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail - > >> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > >> An: dev@wicket.apache.org > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > >> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > >> > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > >>> > >> > >> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > >> > >> > >>> > >>> Have fun > >>> Sven > >>> > >>> > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working > on > >>>> Wicket 10 ? > >>>> > >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) > >>>> > >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > covered > >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > going > >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > Wicket > >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > >>> should > >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still > use > >>>> Java 8 for some reason. > >>>> > >>>> Regards, > >>>> Martin > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro > > -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi everyone, from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0). In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points — Martin's list — 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would prefer doing it in 10 over 9) 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely over other reporting frameworks) kind regards Tobias > Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl > : > > Hi, > > we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. Getting rid > of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding the content > and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for us. > > Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now > definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed > > Best, > KB > > > - Ursprüngliche Mail - >> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" >> An: dev@wicket.apache.org >> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 >> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > >> Hi, >> >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: >> >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. >>> >> >> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing >> >> >>> >>> Have fun >>> Sven >>> >>> >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on >>>> Wicket 10 ? >>>> >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-) >>>> >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 >>> should >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use >>>> Java 8 for some reason. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Martin >>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for us. Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed Best, KB - Ursprüngliche Mail - > Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro" > An: dev@wicket.apache.org > Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34 > Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > >> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. >> > > It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > > >> >> Have fun >> Sven >> >> >> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: >> > Hi, >> > >> > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on >> > Wicket 10 ? >> > >> > Here are few ideas what to break :-) >> > >> > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** >> > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered >> > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x >> > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going >> > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket >> > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 >> should >> > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use >> > Java 8 for some reason. >> > >> > Regards, >> > Martin >> > >> > > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Wicket jQuery UI / Wicket Kendo UI does not use enclosure nor queuing. I have one enclosure occurence in the sample site, so not a big deal... +1 to remove queuing +0 to remove enclosure (I have the feeling that will have a big impact on users...)
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi colleagues! I just quickly searched in IDE and found that we use enclosures quite a lot: 100+ occurrences of `From reading documentation a while ago I had an impression that queue is a more modern and recommended way of adding components. I think if it is decided to remove it in Wicket 10, documentation should be amended immediately to stop making such an impression. On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 12:14 AM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro < reier...@gmail.com> wrote: > Maybe we can start a poll somewhere to see who really use queuing? > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:34 PM Rob Audenaerde > wrote: > > > We use enclosures on 50 locations in the codebase, sometimes also with > > <... child=>.. I guess we can rework them, but I rather not spend > time > > refactoring them as for us they work fine :) > > We don't use component queueing. > > > > -Rob > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM Thomas Heigl > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it. > > > > > > Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick > search > > > in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this. > > I've > > > never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work > to > > > migrate everything to EnclosureContainer > > > > > > Thomas. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier wrote: > > > > > > > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing. > > > > > > > > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing > problems > > > > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of > queuing > > > > in Wicket itself. > > > > > > > > :(. > > > > > > > > Regards > > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > > > > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > > > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for > me > > > :-). > > > > > I'm also for removing it along with . To be more > > > clear, > > > > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash > > with > > > > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component > > > > queueing > > > > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal > > > > classes, > > > > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer. > > > > > So +2 for me. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov < > > mgrigo...@apache.org > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier > > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > > > >>> > > > > >> Wow! > > > > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was > > voted > > > > down > > > > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is > > good > > > > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest > > > > 10-20 %. > > > > >> I'd vote to remove ! > > > > >> > > > > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea > > knows > > > > its > > > > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it > will > > > > >> simplify a lot! > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >>> Have fun > > > > >>> Sven > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > > > thinking/working > > > > >> on > > > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > > > > >> covered > > > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it > > is > > > > >> going > > > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I > expect > > > > >> Wicket > > > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time > Java > > 17 > > > > >>> should > > > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > > > still > > > > >> use > > > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Maybe we can start a poll somewhere to see who really use queuing? On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:34 PM Rob Audenaerde wrote: > We use enclosures on 50 locations in the codebase, sometimes also with > <... child=>.. I guess we can rework them, but I rather not spend time > refactoring them as for us they work fine :) > We don't use component queueing. > > -Rob > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM Thomas Heigl wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it. > > > > Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick search > > in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this. > I've > > never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work to > > migrate everything to EnclosureContainer > > > > Thomas. > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier wrote: > > > > > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing. > > > > > > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems > > > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing > > > in Wicket itself. > > > > > > :(. > > > > > > Regards > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me > > :-). > > > > I'm also for removing it along with . To be more > > clear, > > > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash > with > > > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component > > > queueing > > > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal > > > classes, > > > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer. > > > > So +2 for me. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov < > mgrigo...@apache.org > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier > wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > > >>> > > > >> Wow! > > > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was > voted > > > down > > > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is > good > > > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest > > > 10-20 %. > > > >> I'd vote to remove ! > > > >> > > > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea > knows > > > its > > > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will > > > >> simplify a lot! > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> Have fun > > > >>> Sven > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > > thinking/working > > > >> on > > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > > > >> covered > > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it > is > > > >> going > > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > > > >> Wicket > > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java > 17 > > > >>> should > > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > > still > > > >> use > > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
We use enclosures on 50 locations in the codebase, sometimes also with <... child=>.. I guess we can rework them, but I rather not spend time refactoring them as for us they work fine :) We don't use component queueing. -Rob On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM Thomas Heigl wrote: > Hi, > > I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it. > > Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick search > in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this. I've > never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work to > migrate everything to EnclosureContainer > > Thomas. > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier wrote: > > > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing. > > > > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems > > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing > > in Wicket itself. > > > > :(. > > > > Regards > > Sven > > > > > > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me > :-). > > > I'm also for removing it along with . To be more > clear, > > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with > > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component > > queueing > > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal > > classes, > > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer. > > > So +2 for me. > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > > >> > > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > >>> > > >> Wow! > > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted > > down > > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good > > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest > > 10-20 %. > > >> I'd vote to remove ! > > >> > > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows > > its > > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will > > >> simplify a lot! > > >> > > >> > > >>> Have fun > > >>> Sven > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start > thinking/working > > >> on > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > > >> covered > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > > >> going > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > > >> Wicket > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > > >>> should > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects > still > > >> use > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > Regards, > > Martin > > > > > > > >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it. Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick search in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this. I've never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work to migrate everything to EnclosureContainer Thomas. On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier wrote: > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing. > > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing > in Wicket itself. > > :(. > > Regards > Sven > > > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote: > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me :-). > > I'm also for removing it along with . To be more clear, > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component > queueing > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal > classes, > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer. > > So +2 for me. > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov > > wrote: > > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > >> > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > >>> > >> Wow! > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted > down > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest > 10-20 %. > >> I'd vote to remove ! > >> > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows > its > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will > >> simplify a lot! > >> > >> > >>> Have fun > >>> Sven > >>> > >>> > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > Hi, > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working > >> on > Wicket 10 ? > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > >> covered > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > >> going > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > >> Wicket > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > >>> should > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still > >> use > Java 8 for some reason. > > Regards, > Martin > > > >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing. But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing in Wicket itself. :(. Regards Sven On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote: Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me :-). I'm also for removing it along with . To be more clear, the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component queueing has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal classes, which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer. So +2 for me. On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. Wow! I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %. I'd vote to remove ! About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will simplify a lot! Have fun Sven On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on Wicket 10 ? Here are few ideas what to break :-) 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 should be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use Java 8 for some reason. Regards, Martin
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me :-). I'm also for removing it along with . To be more clear, the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component queueing has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal classes, which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer. So +2 for me. On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > > > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > > > Wow! > I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down > with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good > enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %. > I'd vote to remove ! > > About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its > internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will > simplify a lot! > > > > > > Have fun > > Sven > > > > > > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working > on > > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > covered > > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > going > > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > Wicket > > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > > should > > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still > use > > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Martin > > > > > > -- Andrea Del Bene. Apache Wicket committer.
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
+1 :) (enclosures can easily workarounded, queue is something we are not using :))) On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 16:48, Martin Grigorov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > > > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > > > Wow! > I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down > with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good > enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %. > I'd vote to remove ! > > About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its > internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will > simplify a lot! > > > > > > Have fun > > Sven > > > > > > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working > on > > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > covered > > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > going > > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > Wicket > > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > > should > > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still > use > > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Martin > > > > > > -- Best regards, Maxim
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
I completely avoided using enclosures in projects I worked at. Never used queueing either On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:04 PM Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > +1 :) (enclosures can easily workarounded, queue is something we are not > using :))) > > On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 16:48, Martin Grigorov > wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > > > > > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > > > > > > > Wow! > > I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted > down > > with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good > > enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 > %. > > I'd vote to remove ! > > > > About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows > its > > internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will > > simplify a lot! > > > > > > > > > > Have fun > > > Sven > > > > > > > > > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working > > on > > > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is > > covered > > > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is > > going > > > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect > > Wicket > > > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > > > should > > > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still > > use > > > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Maxim > -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Hi, On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing > > Have fun > Sven > > > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > should > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > Regards, > > Martin > > > -- Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote: > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. > Wow! I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %. I'd vote to remove ! About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will simplify a lot! > > Have fun > Sven > > > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on > > Wicket 10 ? > > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-) > > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 > should > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use > > Java 8 for some reason. > > > > Regards, > > Martin > > >
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing. Have fun Sven On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on Wicket 10 ? Here are few ideas what to break :-) 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.** 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 should be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use Java 8 for some reason. Regards, Martin
