That is the most compelling argument I have ever heard
(maintainability going forward).
saying "i like this by default" as most have done is no argument at
all :)
However I disagree "best" is final by default... it should be the
other way around, where things are only marked final if there is a
good and immediate reason to do so.
Although the debate is long and about as convoluted as the debate of
hungarian notation was, personal experience suggests that everything
final causes more problems than it's worth (I consider the Quartz API
to be poor for that reason also).
However, I am *in no way asking* the developers to reverse the "final"
policy. its working, and working fairly well. I think I may have
started a thread here that is less than productive and unless others
feel that there needs to be a debate on the issue, I'll let it drop.
- Brill Pappin
On 12-Jun-08, at 11:50 AM, Zappaterrini, Larry wrote:
It is not about assuming anyone is an idiot. It is about preserving
maintainability and allowing an API to evolve without breaking client
code. The best approach is to mark members as final unless there is a
compelling reason not to. Final is a safeguard for APIs to know what
behavior is guaranteed to persist as development and evolution of the
API is carried out. Occasionally a user can come up with a good
argument
for removing the final restriction and makes their case, affecting a
change.
It is very easy to create an evolutionary dead end for an API by
allowing everything to be overridden. So either deprecate and start
over
or risk breaking client code and have your users hate you for it :)
-----Original Message-----
From: Brill Pappin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:09 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Making Component easier to Generify
I understand the reasoning, however I think "best practice" can be
debated.
To use your example Swing allows the user to override quite a bit, and
it doesn't make any (or very few) assumptions on what should and
should not be done.
I don't like API's that assume I'm an idiot and prevent me from
manipulating them how I see fit. If I cause a bug that I have to deal
with, thats *my* problem to resolve.
In my book (and I'm not the only one) excessive use of final is an
anti-pattern.
- Brill Pappin
On 12-Jun-08, at 10:01 AM, cowwoc wrote:
Brill,
This is actually an API "best practice". Classes fall into two
categories:
ones designed for subclassing, and ones designed to be final. The
same goes
for methods. Swing is full of examples of what goes wrong when people
override methods in classes that haven't been designed with
subclassing in
mind.
Gili
Brill Pappin wrote:
on removing the finals
The final members are the worst thing I've had to deal with in
Wicket
so far.
Although I understand that there may be a reason for them, they are
more a hinderance than anything else and seem to be trying to
"protect
users from themselves".
- Brill Pappin
On 12-Jun-08, at 1:03 AM, cowwoc wrote:
Have you considered moving from subclassing to composition in
Wicket
using
Callable<T>?
Currently it is quite common for developers to subclass a component
in order
to override isVisible() and other properties. I am proposing that
instead
the component classes become final and properties may only be set
using
setter methods. The setter methods would take Callable<T> instead
of
T, so
for example setVisible(boolean) would become
setVisible(Callable<Boolean>)
The benefit of this approach is that you could introduce static
factory
methods to the Wicket components which would make them much easier
to use in
their Generic form. You could then introduce various helper
classes to
create Callable<T> for constant values, such as
Callable.valueOf(true) would
return a Callable<Boolean> that always returns true.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-yo
ur-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17792488.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-yo
ur-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17800710.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
______________
The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or
confidential. If you are not the
intended recipient, please: (i) delete the message and all copies;
(ii) do not disclose,
distribute or use the message in any manner; and (iii) notify the
sender immediately. In addition,
please be aware that any message addressed to our domain is subject
to archiving and review by
persons other than the intended recipient. Thank you.
_____________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
