-1 on removing add() from ctor, too it will piss of a huge load of wicket developers for a tiny and questionable benefit.
things like this made me drop tapestry btw (thanks for the really big laugh, martijn :-) we don't want users to leave because we make decisions from within the ivory tower. Am 10.03.2011 um 14:07 schrieb Maarten Billemont: >> [drama] >> >> So to summarize my rant: >> >> -1 for removing the ability to use add inside a constructor. >> +0 for improving the handling of oninitialize >> +1 for improving the documentation on the lifecycle of components and >> the event chain called during processing [2] > > I assume that means you don't care if 3218 is marked as won't fix and > onInitialize remains overridable by those that choose to use it. > > Documentation is a good enough alternative when there is an unresolved issue > that only occurs in rare cases. So yes, document it, and let those that want > to use onInitialize do so. > > I never claimed using constructors will make your webapps eat your young. I > simply outlined the pros and cons of each approach and argued the design > advantages of not touching your components from outside wicket lifecycle > methods. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
