More OO is less synchronization between markup and wicket.
It should be sufficient that the artist thinks the gfx are immacculate
and that the java developer thinks the code is immacculate. Why do we
need to couple java with html hierarchies and stuff? Some namespace
attribute could suffice to allow nested components.
**
Martin
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:51 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> and where is this more OO?
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 7:24 AM, Martin Makundi
>> <martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
>> > I vote +1 for more OO Wicket. Way to go Ricardo!
>> >
>> > **
>> > Martin
>> >
>> > 2009/12/23 Ricardo Mayerhofer <ricardo.ekm.lis...@gmail.com>:
>> >> Hi Igor,
>> >> Thanks for your response. Here goes my observations:
>> >>
>> >> Em 22/12/2009 14:41, Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 5:19 AM, Ricardo Mayerhofer
>> >>> <ricardo.ekm.lis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Hi all,
>> >>>> We've just finished with success a wicket project for a large online
>> >>>> retailer. I think wicket is the best framework out there, but as any
>> >>>> other
>> >>>> project there is room for improvement. I will talk about some topics
>> >>>> bellow,
>> >>>> I hope it can help in some way.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Separation of corcerns
>> >>>> I think we could get a better separation of concerns if page class
>> were
>> >>>> focused more in behavior and html were more focused in display (or
>> view).
>> >>>> What I mean is, some times we have components that the main purpose is
>> to
>> >>>> add behavior, and we have to add extra markup just to satisfy wicket
>> 1:1
>> >>>> mapping. Take CheckGroup for exaple, it is a component focused on
>> >>>> behavior,
>> >>>> even though we have to add a reference to it in HTML.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> a redesigned CheckGroup is welcome, but that component is the
>> >>> exception and not the rule.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Yes, but how do we deal with the requirement of all components having a
>> HTML
>> >> representation? The same happens with RadioGroup, even with wicket-1055
>> >> solved, the HTML reference is still there.
>> >>
>> >>>> When creating composite input fields (like date), the usual way is to
>> >>>> create
>> >>>> a panel even if you are not interested in reusability. A interesting
>> >>>> aproach
>> >>>> is to insert a hidden text field in HTML mapped to a component that
>> >>>> controls
>> >>>> other components input. It makes easier to integrate with designer and
>> to
>> >>>> preview in browser. If we didn't have this limitation the hidden input
>> >>>> would
>> >>>> not be necessary and the development of behavior focused components
>> would
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> easier.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> i dont really understand this..the usual way would be to extend a
>> >>> FormComponentPanel, not a Panel. are you saying that because the Panel
>> >>> derivatives are just a<div> in the markup it makes it difficult for
>> >>> the designers?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> You're right, I meant FormComponentPanel. I think it would be better not
>> >> being constrained to have a separate markup just because server side
>> >> processing will be different. After all in HTML terms, a composite input
>> is
>> >> the same as a single input. Another example of unecessary coupling IMO
>> is
>> >> that text area and input text fields are mapped to different components,
>> >> even behaving the same.
>> >> Even if there are internals when manipulating one or another, I think it
>> >> should be handled by wicket because for the programmer it makes no
>> >> difference.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One thing that bothers me is when our designer move things around in
>> HTML
>> >>>> and we get "added a component in code but forgot to reference it in
>> the
>> >>>> markup" error, because of component hierarchy. Html tags position is a
>> >>>> view
>> >>>> problem not a behavior problem, so why bother in java?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> it *is* a behavior problem. markup is what drives the rendering order
>> >>> so if you move things around and change the nesting order of
>> >>> components then you can have a component that is a child of another
>> >>> render *before* the parent which will cause things to go seriously out
>> >>> of whack.
>> >>>
>> >>> in my company the designers understand that they cannot change the
>> >>> nesting of tags with wicket:id attributes, it took an hour to explain
>> >>> it to them, and we have not had any problems since. in practice, there
>> >>> is no need to do that often anyways...
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> IMO learning how to deal with a restriction, isn't better than removing
>> that
>> >> restriction. Even if it doens't happen often, I would be happier if it
>> never
>> >> happens :)
>> >> Render order seems a wicket internal concern to me not a business or
>> >> application behavior concern.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Another issue, is when we want to change the class of a div, for
>> example,
>> >>>> and have to change our whole page hierarchy in java, just to
>> manipulate
>> >>>> that
>> >>>> tag.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> you dont have to change the hierarchy, just make the component
>> >>> attached to that div a "transparent resolver" by overriding
>> >>> isTransparentResolver() and returning true.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> So I think a hierarchy more focused on components behavior (for
>> example
>> >>>> taking care of inherited models and inputs), rather than tags position
>> in
>> >>>> HTML would be better. This would make wicket more flexible and easier
>> to
>> >>>> work with.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> once again, this is only a problem when you change the *nesting* of
>> >>> components. if a component can be safely moved outside the parent,
>> >>> then why is there a nesting to begin with? why arent the two
>> >>> components siblings? the *nesting* is usually there *because* there is
>> >>> a functional requirement.
>> >>>
>> >>> here is a simple usecase:
>> >>>
>> >>> webmarkupcontainer admin=new webmarkupcontainer("admin") { isvisible()
>> >>> { return user.isadmin(); }};
>> >>> admin.add(new link("delete") {...});
>> >>>
>> >>> the code is pretty much self-explanatory, now the designer takes the
>> >>> delete link and moves it ouside the wicket:id="admin" tag. in your
>> >>> vision this would work, but now the designer has completely
>> >>> circumvented security the developer has put into place.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> They have a functional relationship, so no matter where delete link is
>> in
>> >> HTML, it should be invisible. This has a aditional advantage that I do
>> not
>> >> need to map admin to HTML, and can group another admin functions in the
>> same
>> >> component, even if they're scattered.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Too many finals modifiers
>> >>>> It's hard for a API or framework designer to foresee all uses and
>> >>>> unxepected
>> >>>> situations its users may face in day to day development. Final
>> modifiers
>> >>>> places a additional challenge when facing these situations. In project
>> >>>> were
>> >>>> deadlines are in place, there is little room for submiting a request
>> and
>> >>>> waiting for a new version to be released. Furthermore, unfortunately,
>> >>>> it's
>> >>>> not possible to mock final methods making it harder sometimes to test
>> >>>> wicket
>> >>>> related classes/components. What we had to do internally, is to have
>> our
>> >>>> own
>> >>>> version of wicket, mainly to remove final modifiers when necessary, a
>> >>>> clear
>> >>>> violation of open/closed principle.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> there is a trade off here. the final modifiers allow us to change
>> >>> things below without breaking the api because final methods do not
>> >>> expose a contract. when we make a code change inside a final method we
>> >>> do not have to think about all the users out there who might have
>> >>> potentially overridden the method in their apps and we have to make
>> >>> whatever change backwards-compatible.
>> >>>
>> >>> in short, the upgrade path with final methods looks like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1.4.0,1.4.1,...,1.4.8,1.4.9
>> >>>
>> >>> and the path without final methods would look like this:
>> >>>
>> >>> 1.4.0,1.4.1,1.5.0 (api break),1.5.1, 1.6.0 (api break), 1.7.0 (api
>> break)
>> >>>
>> >>> and because we are changing contracts the api break would most likely
>> >>> not be compile time, so you would have to scour through release notes
>> >>> and see if you have overridden any of the specified methods that now
>> >>> work differently.
>> >>>
>> >>> which one is better?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Being able to overcome a problem is a need required by the current
>> project,
>> >> which final may impose a additional challenge.
>> >> Upgrades, on the other hand, are usually planned process, in which are
>> >> considered possible problems or API changes.
>> >> I think spring is a good example in this area. It has a pretty good
>> backward
>> >> compatibily, and use very few finals.
>> >>
>> >> About contracts, I think that they should be specified in terms of
>> >> interfaces, not concrete classes. If you depend on concrete classes,
>> it's
>> >> natural that they evolve and may break your integration.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> - Ajax
>> >>>> Wicket offers no stateless ajax
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> we may work on a stateless ajax in the future, for now it is really
>> >>> not that hard to use a third party library.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> and often changes HTML id, which makes
>> >>>> harder to integrate with a 3rd party ajax framework.
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> wicket only changes ids that belong to components, and that is only to
>> >>> make sure they are unique. wicket does , however, offer a way to
>> >>> override the id to whatever you want by calling setMarkupId(..)
>> >>>
>> >>> the proper way to integrate with third party libraries is to pass them
>> >>> ids by calling getmarkupid()
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Many of things I raised (or all of them) have solutions in wicket. But I
>> >> think it's best when the framework solves the problem, rather than doing
>> it
>> >> myself. That's why we use frameworks in the first place.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Is there any hope for
>> >>>> constructor change?
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> what constructor change is that?
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> From the discontinued 2.0.
>> >>>
>> >>> -igor
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >> Thank you for your feedback.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Please let me know your thoughts, keep up the good work.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>>> To unsubscribe,
>> >>>> e-mail:users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org<e-mail%3ausers-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org>
>> >>>> For additional commands,
>> >>>> e-mail:users-h...@wicket.apache.org<e-mail%3ausers-h...@wicket.apache.org>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >>> To unsubscribe,
>> >>> e-mail:users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org<e-mail%3ausers-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org>
>> >>> For additional commands,
>> >>> e-mail:users-h...@wicket.apache.org<e-mail%3ausers-h...@wicket.apache.org>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>> >
>> >
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
