> It looks like quite a few people, more than I expected in fact, > weren't that crazy about the constructor refactor in the first place, > though some people like it better in general (me being one of them > though I see disadvantages as well, but also > http://www.mail-archive.com/general@lists.ops4j.org/msg00402.html). > Based on the replies in this thread, it seems that people find add > more intuitive and like the flexibility that gives you over the > tighter model of 2.0 Personally I prefer the tighter model. What we did on pax-wicket 1.0 examples if I'm not mistaken will cause a higher penalty during serialization/deserialization compared to pax-wicket 2.0.
However, If wicket-1.0 style .add() voted, please add generic support to wicket 1.x. Regards, Edward Yakop ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
