From the Application#destroy() javadoc:
/**
* Called when wicket servlet is destroyed.
* Overrides do not have to call super.
*/
protected void destroy()
{
callDestroyers();
}
That's not ideal - surely we want to be certain the destroyers are called?
I think we should make this method
+1
On 6/20/07, Al Maw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the Application#destroy() javadoc:
/**
* Called when wicket servlet is destroyed.
* Overrides do not have to call super.
*/
protected void destroy()
{
callDestroyers();
}
That's not ideal - surely we want to be certain the destroyers
Actually there is also a protected internalDestroy (still not final
though) which calls destroy so why not put callDestroyers there ?
Maurice
On 6/20/07, Sean Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 6/20/07, Al Maw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the Application#destroy() javadoc
not put callDestroyers there ?
Maurice
On 6/20/07, Sean Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 6/20/07, Al Maw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the Application#destroy() javadoc:
/**
* Called when wicket servlet is destroyed.
* Overrides do not have to call super.
*/
protected void
there is also a protected internalDestroy (still not final
though) which calls destroy so why not put callDestroyers there ?
Maurice
On 6/20/07, Sean Sullivan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 6/20/07, Al Maw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the Application#destroy() javadoc
On 6/20/07, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whatever makes you happy :)
I see Johan as has already made the change of putting callDestroyers
in internalDestroy.
However if you are going to rename that method (not sure if Martijn is
going to like that this late in the game). Please let
as in ?
protected void internalDestroy()
{
...
destroy();
...
}
public final void destroy()
{
ondestroy();
}
public void ondestroy()
{
//do some cleanup here
}
bah, i'd rather have the rename. I have absolutly no problem with a
rename as long as it is announced on the mailing list. But i don't
bah, i'd rather have the rename. I have absolutly no problem with a
rename as long as it is announced on the mailing list.
That's fine. But I have :). And I have been bitten by it enough to
know that without such a deprecation realease, people *will* forget/
not notice.
Eelco
actually
protected void internaldestroy() { ondestroy(); }
@deprecated - use ondestroy instead
final void destroy() {}
void ondestroy() {}
-igor
On 6/20/07, Maurice Marrink [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as in ?
protected void internalDestroy()
{
...
destroy();
...
}
public final void destroy()
Ok, i see i misunderstood, this i can live with. fwiw :)
Maurice
On 6/20/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
actually
protected void internaldestroy() { ondestroy(); }
@deprecated - use ondestroy instead
final void destroy() {}
void ondestroy() {}
-igor
On 6/20/07, Maurice Marrink
10 matches
Mail list logo
