Wicket 7 development status

Hi, With my recent fixes in request mappers code and recovering of page after expiry I have finished my planned work for Wicket 7. Wicket 7.0 Roadmap is also covered. I suggest that we release a milestone so users willing to

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Hi, I agree to release a milestone. There are however a few tasks related to the experimental modules remaining before a milestone can be released. First, wicket-cdi-1.1 needs to be ported from Wicket 6 to 7. The current module in 7 is broken and outdated. I think we can make it part of the cor

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an entry in the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this discussion because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started ... wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far. Did Topicus migrated

Re: Wicket 7 development status

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an entry in > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this discussion > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started ... > wicket-cdi-1.

Re: Wicket 7 development status

OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been made non-experimental. I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for milestone version). @Martijn: can you do the release ? Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn

Re: Wicket 7 development status

sure. I saw Emond struggle with wicket-examples just today, so we might need a couple of days to stabilise things. The wicket-experimental groupIds are not yet converted. I have a patch waiting to do that, but have to ensure its viability for now. Martijn On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Marti

Re: Wicket 7 development status

what problems with wicket-examples ? cdi related ones or something else ? Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Martijn Dashorst < martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > sure. I saw Emond struggle with wicket-examples just today, so we might > need a coup

Re: Wicket 7 development status

I had to remove the BeanManager JNDI reference from web.xml to get things running, but it works fine without it. Emond On Monday 27 January 2014 13:24:21 Martin Grigorov wrote: > what problems with wicket-examples ? > cdi related ones or something else ? > > Martin Grigorov > Wicket Training an

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Good! @Martijn: feel free to remove the experimental modules for wicket-bootstrap and examples NG when making the changes in the Maven groupIds Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Emond Papegaaij wrote: > I had to remove the BeanManager JNDI referen

Re: Wicket 7 development status

So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer marked experimental? Is there anything significant in the core Wicket lib? N On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been made > non-experimental. > I

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Check https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0 Also Jira filter https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080shows all tickets which are fixed only in 7.0.0. There are some new features which are not listed in the migration guide. There are no revolutionar

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Should we strive to ease the addition of lambda expressions to Wicket by introducing single method interfaces in various places in Wicket 7? For a contrived example: AbstractLink#setBody(IModel bodyModel) {} Could be: AbstractLink#setBody(IReadModel bodyModel) {} So that you can do:

Re: Wicket 7 development status

I have been a bit out of touch due to work taking me away from Wicket development for a while, sorry about that. But I really like this idea. For one, IModel is, in hindsight, clearly a thing that does *two* things. I could see it being changed to IReadableModel and IWriteableModel, with IModel s

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Hi, As one might know I did some refactoring in this direction. What we can expect is some trouble with defaultModel in Component. There are different kind of ways to solve this, but it will come with cost. - remove default model from component - make component generic - make some bigger chang

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Hi, On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Michael Mosmann wrote: > Hi, > > As one might know I did some refactoring in this direction. What we can > expect is some trouble with defaultModel in Component. There are different > kind of ways to solve this, but it will come with cost. > - remove default

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Am 29.01.14 09:31, schrieb Martin Grigorov: Hi, On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Michael Mosmann wrote: Hi, As one might know I did some refactoring in this direction. What we can expect is some trouble with defaultModel in Component. There are different kind of ways to solve this, but it wi

Re: Wicket 7 development status

mmm...looks interesting :) > - finish my serialization visualization tool (1-2 weeks (hope so))

Re: Wicket 7 development status

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > - currently IModel is also IDetachable > I am not sure that lambda's in Java 8 will work here unless we remove > IDetachable from the base imodel interface and add it to each > implementation. > We can provide a default implementation in I

Re: Wicket 7 development status

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Martijn Dashorst < martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Martin Grigorov >wrote: > > > - currently IModel is also IDetachable > > I am not sure that lambda's in Java 8 will work here unless we remove > > IDetachable from the base im

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Hi, I'm not yet sure if I like the idea to *replace* IModel by a lambda. In my code, I rarely have a need for a non-detachable, non-writeable model (except for a quick Model.of(constant), but this would not be much different with a lambda). My idea would be to leave IModel as it is, with read/wri

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Here is a quick demo what can be done with Scala implicits (now!): https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/commit/ec6cd469f15a07721c0db9902f2672fbd117c197 Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Martin Geisse wrote: > Hi, > > I'm not yet sure if I like the id