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 us know since
those projects still on jdk 1.4 don't warn about missing override
methods.
Maurice
On 6/20/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yes, that makes sense. howevern, i still like ondestroy() better then
destroy(). ondestroy() makes it clear it is a listener.
-igor
On 6/20/07, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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:
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * 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 final, and provide an onDestroy()
> > > hook that is called within it.
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Al
> > >
> > > --
> > > Alastair Maw
> > > Wicket-biased blog at http://herebebeasties.com
> > >
> >
>
