You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> on 2014/01/20 10:01:36 UTC
Wicket 7 development status
Hi,
With my recent fixes in request mappers code and recovering of page after
expiry I have finished my planned work for Wicket 7.
Wicket 7.0 Roadmap<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+7.0+Roadmap>
is
also covered.
I suggest that we release a milestone so users willing to help can migrate
their apps and report any issues.
Here is a JIRA filter<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080>that
shows all issues which have been fixed/implemented only in Wicket 7.x.
I.e. it excludes issues that are fixed both in 6.x and 7.x.
At the moment out of 253 issues with FixVersion=7.0.0, 86 issues are 7.0.0
only.
We can use this filter to extract "What is new in 7.x" because the
migration guide doesn't show such information.
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Good!
@Martijn: feel free to remove the experimental modules for wicket-bootstrap
and examples NG when making the changes in the Maven groupIds
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:29 PM, Emond Papegaaij <emond.papegaaij@topicus.nl
> wrote:
> I had to remove the BeanManager JNDI reference from web.xml to get
> things running, but it works fine without it.
>
> Emond
>
> On Monday 27 January 2014 13:24:21 Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > what problems with wicket-examples ?
> > cdi related ones or something else ?
> >
> > Martin Grigorov
> > Wicket Training and Consulting
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> >
> > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > sure. I saw Emond struggle with wicket-examples just today, so we
> might
> > > need a couple of days to stabilise things.
> > >
> > > The wicket-experimental groupIds are not yet converted. I have a
> patch
> > > waiting to do that, but have to ensure its viability for now.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Martin Grigorov
> <mgrigorov@apache.org
> > >
> > > >wrote:
> > > > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have
> been made
> > > > non-experimental.
> > > > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for
> milestone
> > > > version).
> > > > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> > > >
> > > > Martin Grigorov
> > > > Wicket Training and Consulting
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > > >
> > > > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> > >
> > > mgrigorov@apache.org>
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is
> an
> > >
> > > entry
> > >
> > > > > in
> > > > >
> > > > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> > >
> > > discussion
> > >
> > > > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you
> started
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I
> believe
> > >
> > > it
> > >
> > > > > is
> > > > >
> > > > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach
> anything
> > > > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to
> work.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine.
> There were
> > > > >
> > > > > just a
> > > > >
> > > > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> > > >
> > > > users'
> > > >
> > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder
> to
> > > >
> > > > make
> > > >
> > > > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0
> ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > > > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar
> framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap>
> or
> > > > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its
> > > > > > packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a
> branch or
> > > > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now,
> and
> > > > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing
> 7.0
> > > > > issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Martijn
> > >
> > > --
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Emond Papegaaij <em...@topicus.nl>.
I had to remove the BeanManager JNDI reference from web.xml to get
things running, but it works fine without it.
Emond
On Monday 27 January 2014 13:24:21 Martin Grigorov wrote:
> what problems with wicket-examples ?
> cdi related ones or something else ?
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
>
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > sure. I saw Emond struggle with wicket-examples just today, so we
might
> > need a couple of days to stabilise things.
> >
> > The wicket-experimental groupIds are not yet converted. I have a
patch
> > waiting to do that, but have to ensure its viability for now.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Martin Grigorov
<mgrigorov@apache.org
> >
> > >wrote:
> > > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have
been made
> > > non-experimental.
> > > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for
milestone
> > > version).
> > > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> > >
> > > Martin Grigorov
> > > Wicket Training and Consulting
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > >
> > > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> >
> > mgrigorov@apache.org>
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is
an
> >
> > entry
> >
> > > > in
> > > >
> > > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> >
> > discussion
> >
> > > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you
started
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I
believe
> >
> > it
> >
> > > > is
> > > >
> > > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> > > >
> > > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach
anything
> > > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to
work.
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine.
There were
> > > >
> > > > just a
> > > >
> > > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> > >
> > > users'
> > >
> > > > > feedback.
> > > > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder
to
> > >
> > > make
> > >
> > > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> > > >
> > > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0
;-)
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> > > >
> > > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar
framework.
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
> > > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its
> > > > > packages.
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a
branch or
> > > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now,
and
> > > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing
7.0
> > > > issues.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> >
> > --
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
what problems with wicket-examples ?
cdi related ones or something else ?
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> sure. I saw Emond struggle with wicket-examples just today, so we might
> need a couple of days to stabilise things.
>
> The wicket-experimental groupIds are not yet converted. I have a patch
> waiting to do that, but have to ensure its viability for now.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been made
> > non-experimental.
> > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for milestone
> > version).
> > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> >
> > Martin Grigorov
> > Wicket Training and Consulting
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> mgrigorov@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an
> entry
> > > in
> > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> discussion
> > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started
> ...
> > >
> > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I believe
> it
> > > is
> > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> > >
> > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
> > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> > >
> > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There were
> > > just a
> > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > > >
> > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> > users'
> > > > feedback.
> > > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to
> > make
> > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> > >
> > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
> > >
> > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> > >
> > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar framework.
> > >
> > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
> > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its packages.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now, and
> > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
sure. I saw Emond struggle with wicket-examples just today, so we might
need a couple of days to stabilise things.
The wicket-experimental groupIds are not yet converted. I have a patch
waiting to do that, but have to ensure its viability for now.
Martijn
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>wrote:
> OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been made
> non-experimental.
> I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for milestone
> version).
> @Martijn: can you do the release ?
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an entry
> > in
> > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this discussion
> > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started ...
> >
> > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I believe it
> > is
> > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> >
> > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
> > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> >
> > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There were
> > just a
> > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > >
> > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> users'
> > > feedback.
> > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to
> make
> > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> >
> > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
> >
> > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> >
> > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar framework.
> >
> > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
> > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its packages.
> >
> > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now, and
> > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
> > issues.
> >
> > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>.
mmm...looks interesting :)
> - finish my serialization visualization tool (1-2 weeks (hope so))
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Michael Mosmann <mi...@mosmann.de>.
Am 29.01.14 09:31, schrieb Martin Grigorov:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Michael Mosmann <mi...@mosmann.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As one might know I did some refactoring in this direction. What we can
>> expect is some trouble with defaultModel in Component. There are different
>> kind of ways to solve this, but it will come with cost.
>> - remove default model from component
>> - make component generic
>> - make some bigger changes to it
>
> Yes, I also imagine bigger API changes to accomplish this.
yes.. think we can not avoid this..
> Both the old discussion [1] and Martijn suggest to change Label to use read
> only model.
> I see several problems with this:
>
> - I won't be able to push new object into the Label's model.
> Usually one needs readonly model, like ResourceModel, but there are cases
> when you need to do: label.setModelObject("new")
I see some trouble in changing components model values from "outside" ..
I saw a lot of code where someone did this with more complex
components/models without the component itself knowing this.
But I understand the value of this shortcut.
>
> - o.a.w.Component as the base class for all components doesn't know what
> type of model the specialization will need, so it's signature will have to
> use a base model class. What is the base for IReadableModel and
> IWriteableModel ?!
I think there is only ReadOnlyModel and Model .. because a Model you
only can write into us very unusual.. If we model it this way: IModel ->
IWriteableModel + IReadonlyModel then Component<T,M extends
IReadonlyModel<T>> is valid, because other Components Extend it to f.I.
Form<T> extends Component<T,IModel<T>>
This is how I think about it, which is only valid in my head until some
code proves that I did not miss something.
>
> - currently IModel is also IDetachable
> I am not sure that lambda's in Java 8 will work here unless we remove
> IDetachable from the base imodel interface and add it to each
> implementation.
Yes.. and Models without Detach are useless. I see no obvious solution
with a good benefit/cost ratio.
Next steps:
- finish my serialization visualization tool (1-2 weeks (hope so))
- install java8 on my laptop (1 day .. (hope so.. no idea))
- explore some refactorings and rumtime behavior with the current wicket
branch and java8
Michael
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > - currently IModel is also IDetachable
> > I am not sure that lambda's in Java 8 will work here unless we remove
> > IDetachable from the base imodel interface and add it to each
> > implementation.
> >
>
> We can provide a default implementation in IDetachable. This will make
> IReadableModel a FunctionalInterface:
>
> public interface IJava8Detachable extends Serializable {
> default public void detach() {
> }
> }
>
> @FunctionalInterface
> public interface IJava8ReadableModel<T> extends IJava8Detachable {
> public T getObject();
> }
>
> @FunctionalInterface
> public interface IJava8WriteableModel<T> extends IJava8Detachable {
> public void setObject(T object);
> }
>
> A method defining the readable model as a parameter:
>
> public <T> void setSomeReadableModel(IJava8ReadableModel<T> m) {
> ...
> }
>
>
> Usage scenario:
>
> setSomeReadableModel(() -> "Foo " + System.currentTimeMillis());
>
> Martijn
>
All this looks promising but this code depends on JDK 8 features.
Your previous mail started with:
"Should we strive to ease the addition of lambda expressions to Wicket by
introducing single method interfaces in various places in Wicket 7?"
So this discussion should be focused on "how to make Wicket 7 better for
early users of JDK 8".
Wicket 8/9 based on JDK8 won't be released in the next few years :-/
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:31 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>wrote:
> - currently IModel is also IDetachable
> I am not sure that lambda's in Java 8 will work here unless we remove
> IDetachable from the base imodel interface and add it to each
> implementation.
>
We can provide a default implementation in IDetachable. This will make
IReadableModel a FunctionalInterface:
public interface IJava8Detachable extends Serializable {
default public void detach() {
}
}
@FunctionalInterface
public interface IJava8ReadableModel<T> extends IJava8Detachable {
public T getObject();
}
@FunctionalInterface
public interface IJava8WriteableModel<T> extends IJava8Detachable {
public void setObject(T object);
}
A method defining the readable model as a parameter:
public <T> void setSomeReadableModel(IJava8ReadableModel<T> m) {
...
}
Usage scenario:
setSomeReadableModel(() -> "Foo " + System.currentTimeMillis());
Martijn
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:15 AM, Michael Mosmann <mi...@mosmann.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> As one might know I did some refactoring in this direction. What we can
> expect is some trouble with defaultModel in Component. There are different
> kind of ways to solve this, but it will come with cost.
> - remove default model from component
> - make component generic
> - make some bigger changes to it
Yes, I also imagine bigger API changes to accomplish this.
Both the old discussion [1] and Martijn suggest to change Label to use read
only model.
I see several problems with this:
- I won't be able to push new object into the Label's model.
Usually one needs readonly model, like ResourceModel, but there are cases
when you need to do: label.setModelObject("new")
- o.a.w.Component as the base class for all components doesn't know what
type of model the specialization will need, so it's signature will have to
use a base model class. What is the base for IReadableModel and
IWriteableModel ?!
- currently IModel is also IDetachable
I am not sure that lambda's in Java 8 will work here unless we remove
IDetachable from the base imodel interface and add it to each
implementation.
So, at the moment I cannot fully imagine such change. But maybe there is a
clean way ..
1. http://markmail.org/message/iu4wrn5clyibacro
>
>
> m:)
>
>
> So I'm +1 for this, as long as we aren't missing any major obstacles
>> here.
>> Carl-Eric
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Michael Mosmann <mi...@mosmann.de>.
Hi,
As one might know I did some refactoring in this direction. What we can
expect is some trouble with defaultModel in Component. There are
different kind of ways to solve this, but it will come with cost.
- remove default model from component
- make component generic
- make some bigger changes to it
m:)
> So I'm +1 for this, as long as we aren't missing any major obstacles
> here.
> Carl-Eric
>
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Carl-Eric Menzel <cm...@wicketbuch.de>.
I have been a bit out of touch due to work taking me away from Wicket
development for a while, sorry about that.
But I really like this idea.
For one, IModel is, in hindsight, clearly a thing that does *two*
things. I could see it being changed to IReadableModel and
IWriteableModel, with IModel simply extending from both (because the
combination is still often useful). That might be useful even for
distinguishing between input and output models. (this is probably just
a restatement of the original proposal you mentioned, but it's been a
while since I read it)
And for another, since I like functional programming and don't like
Java's boilerplate, I really like the idea of your examples here.
So I'm +1 for this, as long as we aren't missing any major obstacles
here.
Carl-Eric
On Tue, 28 Jan 2014 23:25:30 +0100
Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should we strive to ease the addition of lambda expressions to Wicket
> by introducing single method interfaces in various places in Wicket 7?
>
> For a contrived example:
>
> AbstractLink#setBody(IModel<?> bodyModel) {}
>
> Could be:
>
> AbstractLink#setBody(IReadModel<?> bodyModel) {}
>
> So that you can do:
>
> link.setBody( () -> "Click me!" );
>
> This would replace the old and tried:
>
> link.setBody( new AbstractReadOnlyModel<Object>() {
> public Object getObject() {
> return "Click me!";
> }
> });
>
> Of course this particular example is better done with Model.of("Click
> me!"), but the lambda expression is what makes this more interesting.
>
> My proposal is to do what Michael Mosmann (iirc) has proposed
> previously with splitting read and write of IModel, and use it to our
> advantage in preparing for java 8 in various places.
>
> Components that are candidates for using Single Method Interface
> models may include:
> - Label
> - AbstractLink#body
> - Repeaters
> - ...
>
> While I suppose it is early for us to consider full adoption of Java 8
> lambda's, I doubt it can really hurt us badly if we take this small
> step.
>
> Martijn
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Martin Grigorov
> <mg...@apache.org>wrote:
>
> > Check
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0
> > Also Jira filter
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080shows all
> > tickets which are fixed only in 7.0.0. There are some new
> > features which are not listed in the migration guide.
> > There are no revolutionary changes. Only improvements which cannot
> > be done in 6.x because of API breaks, behavior change or too risky
> > for a minor version.
> >
> > Martin Grigorov
> > Wicket Training and Consulting
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer
> > > marked experimental? Is there anything significant in the core
> > > Wicket lib?
> > >
> > > N
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov
> > > <mgrigorov@apache.org
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have
> > > > been
> > made
> > > > non-experimental.
> > > > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for
> > milestone
> > > > version).
> > > > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> > > >
> > > > Martin Grigorov
> > > > Wicket Training and Consulting
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > > > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> > > mgrigorov@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable
> > > > > > is an
> > > entry
> > > > > in
> > > > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> > > discussion
> > > > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you
> > > > > > started
> > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I
> > believe
> > > it
> > > > > is
> > > > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> > > > >
> > > > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach
> > > > > anything near a testing environment, but for development it
> > > > > seems to work.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine.
> > > > > > There
> > were
> > > > > just a
> > > > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better
> > > > > > based on
> > > > users'
> > > > > > feedback.
> > > > > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be
> > > > > > harder to
> > > > make
> > > > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release
> > > > > 7.0 ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > > > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar
> > framework.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap>
> > or
> > > > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its
> > packages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a
> > > > > branch or so). I can't see that any time is going into that
> > > > > project for now,
> > and
> > > > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and
> > > > > fixing 7.0 issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> > > > >
> > > > > Martijn
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Here is a quick demo what can be done with Scala implicits (now!):
https://github.com/wicketstuff/core/commit/ec6cd469f15a07721c0db9902f2672fbd117c197
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Martin Geisse
<ma...@googlemail.com>wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm not yet sure if I like the idea to *replace* IModel by a lambda.
> In my code, I rarely have a need for a non-detachable, non-writeable
> model (except for a quick Model.of(constant), but this would not be
> much different with a lambda).
>
> My idea would be to leave IModel as it is, with read/write/detach
> methods that might be unimplemented. Then, provide default
> implementations for IModel that *wrap* a lambda:
> - component.setModel(new ReadOnlyModel( () -> "constant" ));
> - component.setModel(new ReadOnlyModel( () -> myLocalVariable ));
> - component.setModel(new LoadableDetachableModel( () ->
> loadRecord(myLocalVariableThatContainsAnId) ));
>
> Especially the last case would really be nice. I run into the need for
> a quick LoadableDetachableModel much more often than for a
> non-detachable ReadOnlyModel.
>
> An added "big bonus" is that the API for Component/defaultModel() is
> much more obvious, and another "small bonus" for needing fewer API
> changes (though the latter is something I could take if it's worth the
> change).
>
> Greetings,
> Martin
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Martijn Dashorst
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Should we strive to ease the addition of lambda expressions to Wicket by
> > introducing single method interfaces in various places in Wicket 7?
> >
> > For a contrived example:
> >
> > AbstractLink#setBody(IModel<?> bodyModel) {}
> >
> > Could be:
> >
> > AbstractLink#setBody(IReadModel<?> bodyModel) {}
> >
> > So that you can do:
> >
> > link.setBody( () -> "Click me!" );
> >
> > This would replace the old and tried:
> >
> > link.setBody( new AbstractReadOnlyModel<Object>() {
> > public Object getObject() {
> > return "Click me!";
> > }
> > });
> >
> > Of course this particular example is better done with Model.of("Click
> > me!"), but the lambda expression is what makes this more interesting.
> >
> > My proposal is to do what Michael Mosmann (iirc) has proposed previously
> > with splitting read and write of IModel, and use it to our advantage in
> > preparing for java 8 in various places.
> >
> > Components that are candidates for using Single Method Interface models
> may
> > include:
> > - Label
> > - AbstractLink#body
> > - Repeaters
> > - ...
> >
> > While I suppose it is early for us to consider full adoption of Java 8
> > lambda's, I doubt it can really hurt us badly if we take this small step.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Check
> >>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0
> >> Also Jira filter
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080shows all
> >> tickets which are fixed only in 7.0.0. There are some new
> >> features which are not listed in the migration guide.
> >> There are no revolutionary changes. Only improvements which cannot be
> done
> >> in 6.x because of API breaks, behavior change or too risky for a minor
> >> version.
> >>
> >> Martin Grigorov
> >> Wicket Training and Consulting
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer marked
> >> > experimental? Is there anything significant in the core Wicket lib?
> >> >
> >> > N
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> mgrigorov@apache.org
> >> > >wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been
> >> made
> >> > > non-experimental.
> >> > > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for
> >> milestone
> >> > > version).
> >> > > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> >> > >
> >> > > Martin Grigorov
> >> > > Wicket Training and Consulting
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> >> > > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> >> > mgrigorov@apache.org>
> >> > > > wrote:
> >> > > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is
> an
> >> > entry
> >> > > > in
> >> > > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> >> > discussion
> >> > > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you
> started
> >> > ...
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> >> > > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> >> > > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> >> > > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I
> >> believe
> >> > it
> >> > > > is
> >> > > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach
> anything
> >> > > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There
> >> were
> >> > > > just a
> >> > > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> >> > > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based
> on
> >> > > users'
> >> > > > > feedback.
> >> > > > > We use it in an internal project.
> >> > > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be
> harder to
> >> > > make
> >> > > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> >> > > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0
> ;-)
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> >> > > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar
> >> framework.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> >> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap
> >
> >> or
> >> > > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its
> >> packages.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> >> > > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now,
> >> and
> >> > > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing
> 7.0
> >> > > > issues.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> >> > > >
> >> > > > Martijn
> >> > > >
> >> > >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Geisse <ma...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
I'm not yet sure if I like the idea to *replace* IModel by a lambda.
In my code, I rarely have a need for a non-detachable, non-writeable
model (except for a quick Model.of(constant), but this would not be
much different with a lambda).
My idea would be to leave IModel as it is, with read/write/detach
methods that might be unimplemented. Then, provide default
implementations for IModel that *wrap* a lambda:
- component.setModel(new ReadOnlyModel( () -> "constant" ));
- component.setModel(new ReadOnlyModel( () -> myLocalVariable ));
- component.setModel(new LoadableDetachableModel( () ->
loadRecord(myLocalVariableThatContainsAnId) ));
Especially the last case would really be nice. I run into the need for
a quick LoadableDetachableModel much more often than for a
non-detachable ReadOnlyModel.
An added "big bonus" is that the API for Component/defaultModel() is
much more obvious, and another "small bonus" for needing fewer API
changes (though the latter is something I could take if it's worth the
change).
Greetings,
Martin
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 11:25 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Should we strive to ease the addition of lambda expressions to Wicket by
> introducing single method interfaces in various places in Wicket 7?
>
> For a contrived example:
>
> AbstractLink#setBody(IModel<?> bodyModel) {}
>
> Could be:
>
> AbstractLink#setBody(IReadModel<?> bodyModel) {}
>
> So that you can do:
>
> link.setBody( () -> "Click me!" );
>
> This would replace the old and tried:
>
> link.setBody( new AbstractReadOnlyModel<Object>() {
> public Object getObject() {
> return "Click me!";
> }
> });
>
> Of course this particular example is better done with Model.of("Click
> me!"), but the lambda expression is what makes this more interesting.
>
> My proposal is to do what Michael Mosmann (iirc) has proposed previously
> with splitting read and write of IModel, and use it to our advantage in
> preparing for java 8 in various places.
>
> Components that are candidates for using Single Method Interface models may
> include:
> - Label
> - AbstractLink#body
> - Repeaters
> - ...
>
> While I suppose it is early for us to consider full adoption of Java 8
> lambda's, I doubt it can really hurt us badly if we take this small step.
>
> Martijn
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>wrote:
>
>> Check
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0
>> Also Jira filter
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080shows all
>> tickets which are fixed only in 7.0.0. There are some new
>> features which are not listed in the migration guide.
>> There are no revolutionary changes. Only improvements which cannot be done
>> in 6.x because of API breaks, behavior change or too risky for a minor
>> version.
>>
>> Martin Grigorov
>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer marked
>> > experimental? Is there anything significant in the core Wicket lib?
>> >
>> > N
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
>> > >wrote:
>> >
>> > > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been
>> made
>> > > non-experimental.
>> > > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for
>> milestone
>> > > version).
>> > > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
>> > >
>> > > Martin Grigorov
>> > > Wicket Training and Consulting
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
>> > > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
>> > mgrigorov@apache.org>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an
>> > entry
>> > > > in
>> > > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
>> > discussion
>> > > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started
>> > ...
>> > > >
>> > > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
>> > > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
>> > > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
>> > > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I
>> believe
>> > it
>> > > > is
>> > > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
>> > > >
>> > > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
>> > > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There
>> were
>> > > > just a
>> > > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
>> > > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
>> > > users'
>> > > > > feedback.
>> > > > > We use it in an internal project.
>> > > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to
>> > > make
>> > > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
>> > > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
>> > > >
>> > > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
>> > > >
>> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
>> > > >
>> > > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
>> > > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar
>> framework.
>> > > >
>> > > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
>> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap>
>> or
>> > > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its
>> packages.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
>> > > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now,
>> and
>> > > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
>> > > > issues.
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
>> > > >
>> > > > Martijn
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
Should we strive to ease the addition of lambda expressions to Wicket by
introducing single method interfaces in various places in Wicket 7?
For a contrived example:
AbstractLink#setBody(IModel<?> bodyModel) {}
Could be:
AbstractLink#setBody(IReadModel<?> bodyModel) {}
So that you can do:
link.setBody( () -> "Click me!" );
This would replace the old and tried:
link.setBody( new AbstractReadOnlyModel<Object>() {
public Object getObject() {
return "Click me!";
}
});
Of course this particular example is better done with Model.of("Click
me!"), but the lambda expression is what makes this more interesting.
My proposal is to do what Michael Mosmann (iirc) has proposed previously
with splitting read and write of IModel, and use it to our advantage in
preparing for java 8 in various places.
Components that are candidates for using Single Method Interface models may
include:
- Label
- AbstractLink#body
- Repeaters
- ...
While I suppose it is early for us to consider full adoption of Java 8
lambda's, I doubt it can really hurt us badly if we take this small step.
Martijn
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:36 PM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>wrote:
> Check
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0
> Also Jira filter
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080shows all
> tickets which are fixed only in 7.0.0. There are some new
> features which are not listed in the migration guide.
> There are no revolutionary changes. Only improvements which cannot be done
> in 6.x because of API breaks, behavior change or too risky for a minor
> version.
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer marked
> > experimental? Is there anything significant in the core Wicket lib?
> >
> > N
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been
> made
> > > non-experimental.
> > > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for
> milestone
> > > version).
> > > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> > >
> > > Martin Grigorov
> > > Wicket Training and Consulting
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> > mgrigorov@apache.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an
> > entry
> > > > in
> > > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> > discussion
> > > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started
> > ...
> > > >
> > > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I
> believe
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> > > >
> > > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
> > > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There
> were
> > > > just a
> > > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> > > users'
> > > > > feedback.
> > > > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to
> > > make
> > > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> > > >
> > > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> > > >
> > > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar
> framework.
> > > >
> > > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap>
> or
> > > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its
> packages.
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> > > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now,
> and
> > > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
> > > > issues.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Check
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+7.0
Also Jira filter
https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080shows all
tickets which are fixed only in 7.0.0. There are some new
features which are not listed in the migration guide.
There are no revolutionary changes. Only improvements which cannot be done
in 6.x because of API breaks, behavior change or too risky for a minor
version.
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:30 PM, Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer marked
> experimental? Is there anything significant in the core Wicket lib?
>
> N
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been made
> > non-experimental.
> > I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for milestone
> > version).
> > @Martijn: can you do the release ?
> >
> > Martin Grigorov
> > Wicket Training and Consulting
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> > martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <
> mgrigorov@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an
> entry
> > > in
> > > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this
> discussion
> > > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started
> ...
> > >
> > > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I believe
> it
> > > is
> > > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> > >
> > > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
> > > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> > >
> > > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There were
> > > just a
> > > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > > >
> > > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> > users'
> > > > feedback.
> > > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to
> > make
> > > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> > >
> > > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
> > >
> > > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> > >
> > > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar framework.
> > >
> > > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
> > > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its packages.
> > >
> > > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> > > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now, and
> > > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> >
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Nick Pratt <nb...@gmail.com>.
So what's in 7.0 M1 apart from a few modules that are no longer marked
experimental? Is there anything significant in the core Wicket lib?
N
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 6:41 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>wrote:
> OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been made
> non-experimental.
> I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for milestone
> version).
> @Martijn: can you do the release ?
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
> martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an entry
> > in
> > > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this discussion
> > > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started ...
> >
> > > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I believe it
> > is
> > > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
> >
> > We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
> > near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> >
> > > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There were
> > just a
> > > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> > >
> > > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on
> users'
> > > feedback.
> > > We use it in an internal project.
> > > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to
> make
> > > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > > I am +1 to make it stable.
> >
> > You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
> >
> > > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
> >
> > Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> > wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar framework.
> >
> > > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
> > > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its packages.
> >
> > I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> > so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now, and
> > any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
> > issues.
> >
> > I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
OK, bean-validation, cdi-1.1 and native-websocket modules have been made
non-experimental.
I think we can release 7.0.0.M1 (or whatever semver allows for milestone
version).
@Martijn: can you do the release ?
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an entry
> in
> > the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this discussion
> > because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started ...
>
> > wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> > Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> > Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> > But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I believe it
> is
> > mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
>
> We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
> near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
>
> > Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There were
> just a
> > few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
> >
> > Wicket Native WebSockets:
> > I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on users'
> > feedback.
> > We use it in an internal project.
> > My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to make
> > improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> > I am +1 to make it stable.
>
> You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
>
> > Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
>
> Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
> wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar framework.
>
> > Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> > Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
> > move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its packages.
>
> I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
> so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now, and
> any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
> issues.
>
> I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
>
> Martijn
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:59 AM, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an entry in
> the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this discussion
> because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started ...
> wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
> Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
> Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
> But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I believe it is
> mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
We have CDI-1.1 in our current project. It has yet to reach anything
near a testing environment, but for development it seems to work.
> Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There were just a
> few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
>
> Wicket Native WebSockets:
> I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on users'
> feedback.
> We use it in an internal project.
> My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to make
> improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
> I am +1 to make it stable.
You can make it stable in 6.x, and break API until we release 7.0 ;-)
> Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
Yup. Though we should add a webjars resource reference into
wicket-extensions that enables easy inclusion of any webjar framework.
> Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
> Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
> move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its packages.
I'd suggest remove Wicket Examples NG for now (move to a branch or
so). I can't see that any time is going into that project for now, and
any time invested should rather go into the user guide and fixing 7.0
issues.
I'm not *that* heavily attached to these two projects.
Martijn
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
Yes, evaluating which experimental modules to become stable is an entry in
the roadmap document but I intentionally left it out of this discussion
because I think it deserves more discussions. But since you started ...
wicket-cdi-1.1 is very new. I guess no one uses it so far.
Did Topicus migrated to 6.13 yet ?
Igor did your product move to wicket-cdi-1.1 ?
But since wicket-cdi-1.1 has evolved from wicket-cdi(-1.0) I believe it is
mature enough to be part of the stable module in Wicket 7.
About Wicket-Atmosphere - I also think it should stay experimental.
My reasons:
- it has no documentation
- it has no tests
- there are 8 opened
issues<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?jql=project+%3D+WICKET+AND+resolution+%3D+Unresolved+AND+component+%3D+wicket-atmosphere+ORDER+BY+priority+DESC>
at
the moment and no one wants to work on them
Wicket Bean Validation (JSR303) seems to be working fine. There were just a
few issues with it. I'm +1 to make it stable module.
Wicket Native WebSockets:
I personally like it and I'd like to make it even better based on users'
feedback.
We use it in an internal project.
My only concern about making it stable is that it will be harder to make
improvements(API breaks) when more people start to use it.
I am +1 to make it stable.
Wicket-Bootstrap: I think this module should be removed.
Wicket Examples NG can use Michael Haitz's
Wicket-Bootstrap<https://github.com/l0rdn1kk0n/wicket-bootstrap> or
move the code from the experimental Wicket-Bootstrap to its packages.
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Emond Papegaaij <
emond.papegaaij@topicus.nl> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I agree to release a milestone. There are however a few tasks related to
> the experimental modules remaining before a milestone can be released.
>
> First, wicket-cdi-1.1 needs to be ported from Wicket 6 to 7. The current
> module in 7 is broken and outdated. I think we can make it part of the core
> modules in both Wicket 6 and 7.
>
> For the other experimental modules, I think we have to look at which
> modules to keep, which to discard and which to promote. Also, we have to
> come up with a better versioning scheme, because the 0.x versions clash
> between 6 and 7.
>
> As said before, I think wicket-cdi-1.1 can be promoted to a core module.
> I'd
> rather keep wicket-atmosphere experimental. Although the code seems
> quite stable, I'm not sure if it's because of lack users or because it
> works
> fine. We do not use it (yet), because our server stack does not support
> websockets.
>
> Best regards,
> Emond
>
> On Monday 20 January 2014 11:01:36 Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > With my recent fixes in request mappers code and recovering of page
> after
> > expiry I have finished my planned work for Wicket 7.
> >
> > Wicket 7.0
> >
> Roadmap<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+7.0+
> Roadm
> > ap> is
> > also covered.
> >
> > I suggest that we release a milestone so users willing to help can
> migrate
> > their apps and report any issues.
> >
> > Here is a JIRA
> > filter<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080>that shows
> > all issues which have been fixed/implemented only in Wicket 7.x. I.e. it
> > excludes issues that are fixed both in 6.x and 7.x.
> >
> > At the moment out of 253 issues with FixVersion=7.0.0, 86 issues are
> 7.0.0
> > only.
> >
> > We can use this filter to extract "What is new in 7.x" because the
> > migration guide doesn't show such information.
> >
> >
> > Martin Grigorov
> > Wicket Training and Consulting
>
>
Re: Wicket 7 development status
Posted by Emond Papegaaij <em...@topicus.nl>.
Hi,
I agree to release a milestone. There are however a few tasks related to
the experimental modules remaining before a milestone can be released.
First, wicket-cdi-1.1 needs to be ported from Wicket 6 to 7. The current
module in 7 is broken and outdated. I think we can make it part of the core
modules in both Wicket 6 and 7.
For the other experimental modules, I think we have to look at which
modules to keep, which to discard and which to promote. Also, we have to
come up with a better versioning scheme, because the 0.x versions clash
between 6 and 7.
As said before, I think wicket-cdi-1.1 can be promoted to a core module. I'd
rather keep wicket-atmosphere experimental. Although the code seems
quite stable, I'm not sure if it's because of lack users or because it works
fine. We do not use it (yet), because our server stack does not support
websockets.
Best regards,
Emond
On Monday 20 January 2014 11:01:36 Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> With my recent fixes in request mappers code and recovering of page
after
> expiry I have finished my planned work for Wicket 7.
>
> Wicket 7.0
>
Roadmap<https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+7.0+
Roadm
> ap> is
> also covered.
>
> I suggest that we release a milestone so users willing to help can
migrate
> their apps and report any issues.
>
> Here is a JIRA
> filter<https://issues.apache.org/jira/issues/?filter=12326080>that shows
> all issues which have been fixed/implemented only in Wicket 7.x. I.e. it
> excludes issues that are fixed both in 6.x and 7.x.
>
> At the moment out of 253 issues with FixVersion=7.0.0, 86 issues are
7.0.0
> only.
>
> We can use this filter to extract "What is new in 7.x" because the
> migration guide doesn't show such information.
>
>
> Martin Grigorov
> Wicket Training and Consulting