Anyway, I don't want to sound grumpy or bitter. I really do appreciate
all the hard work you guys do on Wicket. Wicket has made an incredible
progress and I really like the way it's heading.
I'm using wicket for almost year and half now and it seems that I'm not
going to abandon it any soon :)
-Matej
Matej Knopp wrote:
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
On 5/9/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
I don't mind API breaks. Not at all. If I touch code that is not a part
of "Stable" API, I take the risk of having to change my code when wicket
version changes. I really don't mind.
Well, not everyone agrees with you. Some people started to be
seriously grumpy about it the last two months.
Yeah, I can imagine. That was my opinion only.
- Hide quoted text -
What I do mind is the (occasional) lack of flexibility and things that
keep me from extending the framework the way I want.
The only thing that will not happen is if we know beforehand what
that'll be.
The truth is that this kind of "protection" doesn't work very well. When
I was porting my application from 1.0 to 1.1, there were couple of
things that didn't work and had to be redone. When porting the
application from 1.1 to 1.2 things were even worse. The whole parsing
process was changed and my code didn't work anymore (I had my own
XMLPullParser that wrapped wicket default one). And I didn't touch any
internal stuff.
Imagine what it would have been like if we didn't protect so much.
Seriously, there would be no beginning to it as you probably would
have 'customized' it so much that there wouldn't be a start.
I don't think protection is entirely bad idea. I just think that
sometimes the protection is taken too far.
Furthermore - and I feel this is very important - the fact that we
have guys like you complaining about features and extension points you
miss, tells us (and the rest of the readers here) what kind of use
cases there may be and the discussion hopefully concludes in something
really usefull. It has been like that many times, and if we opened up
prematurely, you might have been able to profit from it from time to
time, but Wicket wouldn't have been as good.
I can second this, I know that you don't ignore the feedback. It's just
that sometimes I'd rather take the risk of being forced to redo
something even if the minor version changes, rather than not be able to
do the thing at all.
So, I think we're doing just fine. We should look for something that
works good out of the box on top of extension points that are useful.
Eelco
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache
Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=k&kid0709&bid&3057&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job
easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=120709&bid=263057&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
