Ok. As long as the page constructor goes. That one is too dangerous and sweat starts breaking out all over when I think of the number of people that may be mis-using this class already.
Eelco On 2/23/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BookmarkableLink and PageLink are different things. They do generate different urls. (and maybe some security things can be easier applied to a pagelink then on a bookmarkable page which exposes the page class directly) So i would say just remove the Page constructor. johan On 2/23/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > hey, i'm USING this! you will break a ton of my code for no reason. > > the IPageLink constructor is useful for delayed construction with > interesting parameters and also fits neatly in with the way i do > navigations > (the page identity bit). > > i'm very -1 for removing this. > > if you really MUST mess with the api because it doesn't fit your style, > can > we at least keep for people like me who are using it or like it and rename > to DelayedPageLink or something? > > > Matej Knopp wrote: > > > > Frank Bille wrote: > >> On 2/22/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> > >>> why dont we just remove PageLink altogether? > >>> > >> > >> +1, remove the bastard :) > >> > >> Frank > >> > > a big +1 from me too. > > > > -Matej > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-remove-PageLink%28String%2CPage%29-constructor-tf3274259.html#a9115685 > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
