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" thi
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
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.
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://git
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 appl
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 Barreir
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> w
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".
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 featur
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 wort
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 Ern
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
t
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
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
gt; >>>> 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
> &g
gt;> 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 featu
n: "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 re
were no longer supported as core features.
> E.g.
> > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> kind regards
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Tobias
>
s like treetables and so on. Correct?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> kind regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tobias
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> > >&
gt; >>>>> 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.
> >>&g
"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
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
orbinian.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
>
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 peop
gt;>> 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
&
e 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,
>
e 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 st
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
> >
> >
> > - U
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.
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
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...)
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, docum
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 fo
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'v
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
mig
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, compo
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 w
+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 encl
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:
>
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 release
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 i
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 @I
42 matches
Mail list logo
