Eelco Hillenius schrieb:
We're hoping for you help, and of course we hope that you'll like Wicket
2.0
I wasn't convinced by the constructor change at first for two reasons:
- Requiring a constructor can be very limiting for clients of the API
- add() seems to be a very intuitive method for adding children to a
component
After thinking about the impact that this change would have on the
actual code I am writing, I changed my opinion. Quite often, I have code
fragments that look similar to your example in the wiki article:
MyLink link = new MyLink("link");
add(link);
link.add(new Label("myLabel", "myText"));
The Wicket 2.0 version is much more streamlined:
MyLink link = new MyLink(this, "link");
new Label(link, "myLabel", "myText");
One thing that came into my mind regards the use of repeaters. Instead
of requiring this not very intuitive code:
Repeater r = ...
r.add(new Label(r, r.newChildId()));
It would be possible to let the child acquire it's ID from the parent:
class Label {
Label(Repeater parent) {
super(parent, parent.newChildId());
}
}
Resulting in a nicer usage:
Repeater r = ...
r.add(new Label(r));
I am not sure about the impact, but it looks nice from my naive
perspective.
Regarding the use of Generics for IModel and Components, I think that
it's a perfect fit. So, yes, I think I'm going to like 2.0 :)
Where do you need help, and how should that work? I would imagine that
it wouldn't help much if everyone bombards you with incompatible patches.
Timo
-------------------------------------------------------
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=107521&bid=248729&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
