You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wicket.apache.org by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> on 2021/04/23 08:58:11 UTC
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
Have fun
Sven
On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on
> Wicket 10 ?
>
> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>
> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered
> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going
> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket
> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17 should
> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use
> Java 8 for some reason.
>
> Regards,
> Martin
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
I completely avoided using enclosures in projects I worked at. Never used
queueing either
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:04 PM Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> +1 :) (enclosures can easily workarounded, queue is something we are not
> using :)))
>
> On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 16:48, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >
> > > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > >
> >
> > Wow!
> > I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted
> down
> > with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good
> > enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20
> %.
> > I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
> >
> > About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows
> its
> > internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
> > simplify a lot!
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Have fun
> > > Sven
> > >
> > >
> > > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
> > on
> > > > Wicket 10 ?
> > > >
> > > > Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > > >
> > > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> > covered
> > > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
> > going
> > > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> > Wicket
> > > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> > > should
> > > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
> > use
> > > > Java 8 for some reason.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Martin
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Maxim
>
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
+1 :) (enclosures can easily workarounded, queue is something we are not
using :)))
On Fri, 23 Apr 2021 at 16:48, Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
> > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> >
>
> Wow!
> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down
> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good
> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %.
> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
>
> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its
> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
> simplify a lot!
>
>
> >
> > Have fun
> > Sven
> >
> >
> > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
> on
> > > Wicket 10 ?
> > >
> > > Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > >
> > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> covered
> > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
> going
> > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> Wicket
> > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> > should
> > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
> use
> > > Java 8 for some reason.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Martin
> > >
> >
>
--
Best regards,
Maxim
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Sebastien Briquet <sb...@apache.org>.
Wicket jQuery UI / Wicket Kendo UI does not use enclosure nor queuing.
I have one enclosure occurence in the sample site, so not a big deal...
+1 to remove queuing
+0 to remove enclosure (I have the feeling that will have a big impact
on users...)
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Andrew Kondratev <an...@kondratev.pro>.
Hi colleagues! I just quickly searched in IDE and found that we use
enclosures quite a lot: 100+ occurrences of `<wicket:enclosure` and 100+ of
`<wicket:enclosure child=`. I also found 67 uses of wicket queue.
From reading documentation a while ago I had an impression that queue is a
more modern and recommended way of adding components. I think if it is
decided to remove it in Wicket 10, documentation should be amended
immediately to stop making such an impression.
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 12:14 AM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> Maybe we can start a poll somewhere to see who really use queuing?
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:34 PM Rob Audenaerde <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We use enclosures on 50 locations in the codebase, sometimes also with
> > <... child=....>.. I guess we can rework them, but I rather not spend
> time
> > refactoring them as for us they work fine :)
> > We don't use component queueing.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM Thomas Heigl <th...@umschalt.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it.
> > >
> > > Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick
> search
> > > in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this.
> > I've
> > > never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work
> to
> > > migrate everything to EnclosureContainer
> > >
> > > Thomas.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing.
> > > >
> > > > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing
> problems
> > > > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of
> queuing
> > > > in Wicket itself.
> > > >
> > > > :(.
> > > >
> > > > Regards
> > > > Sven
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote:
> > > > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for
> me
> > > :-).
> > > > > I'm also for removing it along with <wicket:enclosure>. To be more
> > > clear,
> > > > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash
> > with
> > > > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component
> > > > queueing
> > > > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal
> > > > classes,
> > > > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer.
> > > > > So +2 for me.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov <
> > mgrigorov@apache.org
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>
> > wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >> Wow!
> > > > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was
> > voted
> > > > down
> > > > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is
> > good
> > > > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest
> > > > 10-20 %.
> > > > >> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
> > > > >>
> > > > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea
> > knows
> > > > its
> > > > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it
> will
> > > > >> simplify a lot!
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Have fun
> > > > >>> Sven
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > > >>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> > > thinking/working
> > > > >> on
> > > > >>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > > >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> > > > >> covered
> > > > >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > > >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it
> > is
> > > > >> going
> > > > >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I
> expect
> > > > >> Wicket
> > > > >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time
> Java
> > 17
> > > > >>> should
> > > > >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects
> > > still
> > > > >> use
> > > > >>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>> Martin
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Maybe we can start a poll somewhere to see who really use queuing?
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 2:34 PM Rob Audenaerde <ro...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We use enclosures on 50 locations in the codebase, sometimes also with
> <... child=....>.. I guess we can rework them, but I rather not spend time
> refactoring them as for us they work fine :)
> We don't use component queueing.
>
> -Rob
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM Thomas Heigl <th...@umschalt.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it.
> >
> > Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick search
> > in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this.
> I've
> > never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work to
> > migrate everything to EnclosureContainer
> >
> > Thomas.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing.
> > >
> > > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems
> > > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing
> > > in Wicket itself.
> > >
> > > :(.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > > Sven
> > >
> > >
> > > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote:
> > > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me
> > :-).
> > > > I'm also for removing it along with <wicket:enclosure>. To be more
> > clear,
> > > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash
> with
> > > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component
> > > queueing
> > > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal
> > > classes,
> > > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer.
> > > > So +2 for me.
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov <
> mgrigorov@apache.org
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>
> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > > >>>
> > > >> Wow!
> > > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was
> voted
> > > down
> > > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is
> good
> > > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest
> > > 10-20 %.
> > > >> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
> > > >>
> > > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea
> knows
> > > its
> > > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
> > > >> simplify a lot!
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Have fun
> > > >>> Sven
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > >>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> > thinking/working
> > > >> on
> > > >>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> > > >> covered
> > > >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it
> is
> > > >> going
> > > >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> > > >> Wicket
> > > >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java
> 17
> > > >>> should
> > > >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects
> > still
> > > >> use
> > > >>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Regards,
> > > >>>> Martin
> > > >>>>
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Rob Audenaerde <ro...@gmail.com>.
We use enclosures on 50 locations in the codebase, sometimes also with
<... child=....>.. I guess we can rework them, but I rather not spend time
refactoring them as for us they work fine :)
We don't use component queueing.
-Rob
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 1:06 PM Thomas Heigl <th...@umschalt.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it.
>
> Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick search
> in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this. I've
> never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work to
> migrate everything to EnclosureContainer
>
> Thomas.
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
> > Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing.
> >
> > But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems
> > just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing
> > in Wicket itself.
> >
> > :(.
> >
> > Regards
> > Sven
> >
> >
> > On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote:
> > > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me
> :-).
> > > I'm also for removing it along with <wicket:enclosure>. To be more
> clear,
> > > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with
> > > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component
> > queueing
> > > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal
> > classes,
> > > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer.
> > > So +2 for me.
> > >
> > > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > >>>
> > >> Wow!
> > >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted
> > down
> > >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good
> > >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest
> > 10-20 %.
> > >> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
> > >>
> > >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows
> > its
> > >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
> > >> simplify a lot!
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Have fun
> > >>> Sven
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> thinking/working
> > >> on
> > >>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> > >> covered
> > >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
> > >> going
> > >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> > >> Wicket
> > >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> > >>> should
> > >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects
> still
> > >> use
> > >>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Martin
> > >>>>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Thomas Heigl <th...@umschalt.com>.
Hi,
I've never used queuing in any of my projects. +1 for removing it.
Enclosures on the other hand, I'm using quite a lot. I did a quick search
in my main project and there are roughly 600 of them. I'm +0 on this. I've
never had problems with enclosures and it would be quite a lot of work to
migrate everything to EnclosureContainer
Thomas.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 12:47 PM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing.
>
> But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems
> just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing
> in Wicket itself.
>
> :(.
>
> Regards
> Sven
>
>
> On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote:
> > Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me :-).
> > I'm also for removing it along with <wicket:enclosure>. To be more clear,
> > the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with
> > each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component
> queueing
> > has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal
> classes,
> > which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer.
> > So +2 for me.
> >
> > On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> >>>
> >> Wow!
> >> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted
> down
> >> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good
> >> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest
> 10-20 %.
> >> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
> >>
> >> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows
> its
> >> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
> >> simplify a lot!
> >>
> >>
> >>> Have fun
> >>> Sven
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
> >> on
> >>>> Wicket 10 ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> >> covered
> >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
> >> going
> >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> >> Wicket
> >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> >>> should
> >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
> >> use
> >>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>.
Up till now I just avoided enclosures and ignored queuing.
But with WICKET-6879 I had to learn that you run into queuing problems
just by using a Border - it's constructor has the only usage of queuing
in Wicket itself.
:(.
Regards
Sven
On 23.04.21 12:40, Andrea Del Bene wrote:
> Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me :-).
> I'm also for removing it along with <wicket:enclosure>. To be more clear,
> the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with
> each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component queueing
> has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal classes,
> which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer.
> So +2 for me.
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>>
>> Wow!
>> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down
>> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good
>> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %.
>> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
>>
>> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its
>> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
>> simplify a lot!
>>
>>
>>> Have fun
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
>> on
>>>> Wicket 10 ?
>>>>
>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>>>>
>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
>> covered
>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
>> going
>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
>> Wicket
>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
>>> should
>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
>> use
>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>.
Yes, component queueing exists just to let people open issues for me :-).
I'm also for removing it along with <wicket:enclosure>. To be more clear,
the big problem with these 2 features is that they literally clash with
each other mushrooming tons of problems. In particular, component queueing
has been implemented without a proper refactoring of the internal classes,
which resulted in a code bloat for class MarkupContainer.
So +2 for me.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:48 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
> > x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> >
>
> Wow!
> I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down
> with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good
> enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %.
> I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
>
> About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its
> internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
> simplify a lot!
>
>
> >
> > Have fun
> > Sven
> >
> >
> > On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
> on
> > > Wicket 10 ?
> > >
> > > Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > >
> > > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> covered
> > > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
> going
> > > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> Wicket
> > > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> > should
> > > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
> use
> > > Java 8 for some reason.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Martin
> > >
> >
>
--
Andrea Del Bene.
Apache Wicket committer.
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>
Wow!
I've suggested removing the enclosures some years ago but it was voted down
with the explanation that it works 80-90% of the time and this is good
enough. There are many open tickets in JIRA which are for the rest 10-20 %.
I'd vote to remove <wicket:enclosure>!
About the component queueing - I think at the moment only Andrea knows its
internals. I am not sure how many users use it but removing it will
simplify a lot!
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
>
> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on
> > Wicket 10 ?
> >
> > Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> >
> > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered
> > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going
> > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket
> > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> should
> > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use
> > Java 8 for some reason.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Martin
> >
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Tobias Gierke <to...@code-sourcery.de>.
> It seems most people prefer to keep <wicket:enclosure>s.
> There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry
> Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10.
That's alright, everyone that maintains a project as old as Wicket is
well-advised to trim some fat once in a while ;)
Thanks for all the work,
Tobias
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs <li...@selckin.be> wrote:
>
>> We also use enclosure quite a bit
>> Never used the queue feature
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst
>> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l
>>>
>>> 804
>>>
>>> *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l
>>>
>>> 369
>>>
>>> 0 uses of queue(
>>>
>>> Roughly 800 pages.
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke <
>> tobias.gierke@voipfuture.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>> We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
>>>> FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very
>>>> large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>>> -Matt Pavlovich
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <
>>>> francois.meillet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>> François
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>> reiern70@gmail.com>
>>>> a écrit :
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
>>>>>>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto:
>>>> tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
>>>>>>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> — Martin's list —
>>>>>>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove
>> wicket-http2-jetty
>>>> /
>>>>>>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I
>>>> would
>>>>>>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
>>>>>>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used
>>>> rarely
>>>>>>>> over other reporting frameworks)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move
>> things
>>>> to
>>>>>>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features.
>> E.g.
>>>>>>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> kind regards
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
>>>>>>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
>>>>>>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup
>> containers
>>>> holding
>>>>>>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and
>> boilerplatecode
>>>> for
>>>>>>>> us.
>>>>>>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE
>> is now
>>>>>>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
>>>>>>>>> Best,
>>>>>>>>> KB
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>>>>>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
>>>>>>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
>>>>>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use
>> queuing
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Have fun
>>>>>>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
>>>> thinking/working
>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything
>> is
>>>>>>>> covered
>>>>>>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17
>> (it
>>>> is
>>>>>>>> going
>>>>>>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I
>> expect
>>>>>>>> Wicket
>>>>>>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time
>> Java
>>>> 17
>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most
>> projects
>>>> still
>>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>>>> --
>>>> Tobias Gierke
>>>> Software Developer
>>>>
>>>> Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
>>>> Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
>>>> Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
>>>> Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Removal of component queueing
Posted by Vit Rozkovec <ro...@email.cz>.
I personally find it confusing and always strive to match the structure
and order of java components in to the order they are defined in html.
With queuing the hierarchy information is lost on java side and you have
to go to html to find it and at times html templates may be also overly
complex so you don't spot it right away.
Although it may be extra work, one could say tedious at times, I've got
used to not using queuing.
Just my 2c.
On 10. 06. 21 8:50, Tobias Gierke wrote:
>
>> I personally find queueing really useful.
>
> Me too.
>
> @devs: Can you please ask in a short mail on users@wicket.apache.org
> how people feel about removing this feature ? If such a poll would
> show significant interest in keeping the feature (which I kind of
> doubt tbh) it would at least be a clear indication that the initial
> idea (decoupling hierarchy in markup and Java) is a sound one and
> probably just the implementation is lacking.
>
> Thanks,
> Tobias
>
>>
>> I'm curious why people aren't using it.
>>
>> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in
>> the markup?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ernesto,
>>>
>>> if you want to do some tests:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing
>>>
>>> Have fun
>>> Sven
>>>
>>> On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
>>>>> simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0.
>>> and a
>>>> large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>> Sven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov
>>>>>> <mg...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>>>>>>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Removing the component queueing ?
>>>>>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
>>>>>>> Why do you ask ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed
>>>>>> because of
>>>>> this
>>>>>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor
>>>>>> changes. Now
>>> it
>>>>>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
>>> was
>>>>>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to
>>>>>> remove
>>>>>> something that is almost working in all cases.
>>>>>>
>
Removal of component queueing
Posted by Tobias Gierke <to...@voipfuture.com>.
> I personally find queueing really useful.
Me too.
@devs: Can you please ask in a short mail on users@wicket.apache.org how
people feel about removing this feature ? If such a poll would show
significant interest in keeping the feature (which I kind of doubt tbh)
it would at least be a clear indication that the initial idea
(decoupling hierarchy in markup and Java) is a sound one and probably
just the implementation is lacking.
Thanks,
Tobias
>
> I'm curious why people aren't using it.
>
> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in
> the markup?
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Ernesto,
>>
>> if you want to do some tests:
>>
>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing
>>
>> Have fun
>> Sven
>>
>> On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>
>>>> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
>>>> simple.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0.
>> and a
>>> large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>> Sven
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>>>>>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Removing the component queueing ?
>>>>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
>>>>>> Why do you ask ?
>>>>>>
>>>>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
>>>> this
>>>>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now
>> it
>>>>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
>> was
>>>>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
>>>>> something that is almost working in all cases.
>>>>>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in
the markup?
I'm not completely sure that component queuing could lead to a more
maintainable code. Reflecting component hierarchy in Java code might seem
an additional burden, but I have the feeling that "flatting" this hierarchy
with component queuing makes debugging and trouble shooting harder as it's
more difficult to understand what contains what.
my 2 cents.
> having missed the introduction of component queuing, I was surprise now
how many places were touched by it - take a look at the size of the commit,
that's insane for a mere convenience feature.
That's right, component queuing should have been provided in a more modular
fashion, without touching so many parts of the framework.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:31 PM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> having missed the introduction of component queuing, I was surprise now
> how many places were touched by it - take a look at the size of the
> commit, that's insane for a mere convenience feature.
>
> > Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined
> in the markup?
>
> Maybe if Wicket had offered component queuing from the beginning, we'd
> had a better solution available.
>
> Regards
> Sven
>
>
> On 03.06.21 15:52, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrew Geery <an...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> I personally find queueing really useful.
> >>
> >> I'm curious why people aren't using it.
> >>
> >> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in
> >> the markup?
> >>
> > well, it is all in the code
> > see Sven's commit at
> >
> https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/adbf35e6176ea69a36e5c7eaf1f514fac99cb91e
> > it adds complexity and fails at random corner cases
> > and no one wants to maintain this extra complexity and add more on top
> of it
> >
> >
> >> Thanks
> >> Andrew
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Ernesto,
> >>>
> >>> if you want to do some tests:
> >>>
> >>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing
> >>>
> >>> Have fun
> >>> Sven
> >>>
> >>> On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
> >>>>> simple.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0.
> >>> and a
> >>>> large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards
> >>>>> Sven
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <
> mgrigorov@apache.org
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> >>>>>>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Removing the component queueing ?
> >>>>>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> >>>>>>> Why do you ask ?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because
> of
> >>>>> this
> >>>>>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes.
> >> Now
> >>> it
> >>>>>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
> >>> was
> >>>>>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to
> >> remove
> >>>>>> something that is almost working in all cases.
> >>>>>>
>
--
Andrea Del Bene.
Apache Wicket committer.
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>.
Hi,
having missed the introduction of component queuing, I was surprise now
how many places were touched by it - take a look at the size of the
commit, that's insane for a mere convenience feature.
> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined
in the markup?
Maybe if Wicket had offered component queuing from the beginning, we'd
had a better solution available.
Regards
Sven
On 03.06.21 15:52, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrew Geery <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I personally find queueing really useful.
>>
>> I'm curious why people aren't using it.
>>
>> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in
>> the markup?
>>
> well, it is all in the code
> see Sven's commit at
> https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/adbf35e6176ea69a36e5c7eaf1f514fac99cb91e
> it adds complexity and fails at random corner cases
> and no one wants to maintain this extra complexity and add more on top of it
>
>
>> Thanks
>> Andrew
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Ernesto,
>>>
>>> if you want to do some tests:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing
>>>
>>> Have fun
>>> Sven
>>>
>>> On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
>>>>> simple.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0.
>>> and a
>>>> large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>> Sven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>>>>>>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Removing the component queueing ?
>>>>>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
>>>>>>> Why do you ask ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
>>>>> this
>>>>>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes.
>> Now
>>> it
>>>>>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
>>> was
>>>>>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to
>> remove
>>>>>> something that is almost working in all cases.
>>>>>>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 3:57 PM Andrew Geery <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I personally find queueing really useful.
>
> I'm curious why people aren't using it.
>
> Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in
> the markup?
>
well, it is all in the code
see Sven's commit at
https://github.com/apache/wicket/commit/adbf35e6176ea69a36e5c7eaf1f514fac99cb91e
it adds complexity and fails at random corner cases
and no one wants to maintain this extra complexity and add more on top of it
>
> Thanks
> Andrew
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ernesto,
> >
> > if you want to do some tests:
> >
> > https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing
> >
> > Have fun
> > Sven
> >
> > On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
> > >> simple.
> > >>
> > >>
> > > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0.
> > and a
> > > large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >> Sven
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mgrigorov@apache.org
> >
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> > >>>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Martin,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> Removing the component queueing ?
> > >>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> > >>>> Why do you ask ?
> > >>>>
> > >>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
> > >> this
> > >>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes.
> Now
> > it
> > >>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
> > was
> > >>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to
> remove
> > >>> something that is almost working in all cases.
> > >>>
> > >
> >
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Andrew Geery <an...@gmail.com>.
I personally find queueing really useful.
I'm curious why people aren't using it.
Why duplicate the component hierarchy in Java if it's already defined in
the markup?
Thanks
Andrew
On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 8:09 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> Hi Ernesto,
>
> if you want to do some tests:
>
> https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
> On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
> >> simple.
> >>
> >>
> > Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0.
> and a
> > large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
> >
> > Regards
> >> Sven
> >>
> >>
> >> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> >>>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi Martin,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
> >>>>>
> >>>> Removing the component queueing ?
> >>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> >>>> Why do you ask ?
> >>>>
> >>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
> >> this
> >>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now
> it
> >>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
> was
> >>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> >>> something that is almost working in all cases.
> >>>
> >
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>.
Hi Ernesto,
if you want to do some tests:
https://github.com/apache/wicket/tree/remove-queuing
Have fun
Sven
On 02.06.21 12:04, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
>> simple.
>>
>>
> Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. and a
> large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
>
> Regards
>> Sven
>>
>>
>> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>>>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>
>>>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
>>>>>
>>>> Removing the component queueing ?
>>>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
>>>> Why do you ask ?
>>>>
>>> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
>> this
>>> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it
>>> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was
>>> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
>>> something that is almost working in all cases.
>>>
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
> simple.
>
>
Nice. We have the master branch of our application running on 9.3.0. and a
large set of selenium tests: I will try it against this branch.
Regards
>
> Sven
>
>
> On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> >> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Martin,
> >>>
> >>> How much work do you think this will imply?
> >>>
> >> Removing the component queueing ?
> >> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> >> Why do you ask ?
> >>
> > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
> this
> > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it
> > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was
> > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> > something that is almost working in all cases.
> >
>
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>.
Hi,
I already removed queuing on an experimental branch, and it was quite
simple.
Regards
Sven
On 02.06.21 08:36, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
>> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Martin,
>>>
>>> How much work do you think this will imply?
>>>
>> Removing the component queueing ?
>> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
>> Why do you ask ?
>>
> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this
> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it
> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was
> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> something that is almost working in all cases.
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Tobias Gierke <to...@voipfuture.com>.
>> I am not sure how to react on this '+1'.
>> Martin Terra, you requested this feature and then never bothered to upgrade
>> to something newer than 1.4.
>> Sorry, but your votes don't count anymore! :-)
>>
> Martin: I fully agree with you. How this feature was introduced can, at
> least, be called "weird".
Fwiw, I think the basic idea ( not having to adjust java code when
changing the nesting of markup tags) is a sound one. I've personally
never witnessed any of those edge-cases where component queuing is not
working properly... but then again, we have a very old (10+ years)
Wicket application with a lot of code that never got touched after
component queuing got introduced (and most devs here kind of stuck with
the old habit of just using Component#add()).
A wild guess as I don't know about the actual performance impact this
feature has: Compared to the slowdown caused by single-threaded Page
access or the fact that most useful code will at some point hit a
database/external REST API/whatever, it's probably miniscule and IMHO by
itself not too convincing as an argument for the removal of this feature.
Just my 2 cents,
Tobias
>
--
Tobias Gierke
Software Developer
Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
> > >
> > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
> > this
> > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now
> it
> > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
> was
> > > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> > > something that is almost working in all cases.
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
>
> I am not sure how to react on this '+1'.
> Martin Terra, you requested this feature and then never bothered to upgrade
> to something newer than 1.4.
> Sorry, but your votes don't count anymore! :-)
>
Martin: I fully agree with you. How this feature was introduced can, at
least, be called "weird".
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:44 AM Martin Terra <
martin.terra@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
> ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reiern70@gmail.com)
> kirjoitti:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> > > reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Martin,
> > > >
> > > > How much work do you think this will imply?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Removing the component queueing ?
> > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> > > Why do you ask ?
> > >
> >
> > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
> this
> > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it
> > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was
> > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> > something that is almost working in all cases.
> >
>
> +1
>
I am not sure how to react on this '+1'.
Martin Terra, you requested this feature and then never bothered to upgrade
to something newer than 1.4.
Sorry, but your votes don't count anymore! :-)
>
> >
> > --
> > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> >
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:58 AM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> What I mean is to do a table of pros VS cons of dropping this feature. For
> instance, I just remember someone did a profiling of his application and
> reported that wicket (in his application) was slower after this feature was
> introduced (a pro of removing it, maybe wicket will be faster). All
> the work to get rid of it (a con).
>
Do you offer to do this comparison ?
I do offer to remove it because of the following reasons:
- in the earlier mails just one person said that he uses it. To make the
poll more statistically accurate we could ask in users@ and at Twitter too
- almost no one from the Wicket dev team knows how this works internally.
Only Andrea tries to fix bugs in this functionality. I believe Igor lost
interest in Wicket (and open source, in general) because of the Component
Queueing
- component queueing and auto-components don't work well. Much more people
use auto-components (anything <wicket:***) than component.queue(...)
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:43 AM Martin Terra <
> martin.terra@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
>
> > ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reiern70@gmail.com
> )
> > kirjoitti:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> > > > reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi Martin,
> > > > >
> > > > > How much work do you think this will imply?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Removing the component queueing ?
> > > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> > > > Why do you ask ?
> > > >
> > >
> > > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
> > this
> > > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now
> it
> > > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I
> was
> > > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> > > something that is almost working in all cases.
> > >
> >
> > +1
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
What I mean is to do a table of pros VS cons of dropping this feature. For
instance, I just remember someone did a profiling of his application and
reported that wicket (in his application) was slower after this feature was
introduced (a pro of removing it, maybe wicket will be faster). All
the work to get rid of it (a con).
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:43 AM Martin Terra <
martin.terra@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
> ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reiern70@gmail.com)
> kirjoitti:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> > > reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi Martin,
> > > >
> > > > How much work do you think this will imply?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Removing the component queueing ?
> > > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> > > Why do you ask ?
> > >
> >
> > It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of
> this
> > feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it
> > is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was
> > just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> > something that is almost working in all cases.
> >
>
> +1
>
> >
> > --
> > Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> >
>
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Terra <ma...@koodaripalvelut.com>.
ke 2. kesäk. 2021 klo 9.36 Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro (reiern70@gmail.com)
kirjoitti:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> > reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Martin,
> > >
> > > How much work do you think this will imply?
> > >
> >
> > Removing the component queueing ?
> > I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> > Why do you ask ?
> >
>
> It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this
> feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it
> is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was
> just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
> something that is almost working in all cases.
>
+1
>
> --
> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Wed, Jun 2, 2021 at 9:14 AM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Martin,
> >
> > How much work do you think this will imply?
> >
>
> Removing the component queueing ?
> I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
> Why do you ask ?
>
It is removing + fixing back all things that were changed because of this
feature.I have the impression this implied a lot of minor changes. Now it
is reverting all that and making sure everything works again. Thus I was
just wondering if it will be worth the effort to do that just to remove
something that is almost working in all cases.
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 10:51 PM Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
reiern70@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
>
> How much work do you think this will imply?
>
Removing the component queueing ?
I am not sure. Removing should be easier than implementing it.
Why do you ask ?
>
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:18 PM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>
> wrote:
>
> > It seems most people prefer to keep <wicket:enclosure>s.
> > There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry
> > Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10.
> >
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs <li...@selckin.be>
> wrote:
> >
> > > We also use enclosure quite a bit
> > > Never used the queue feature
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst
> > > <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l
> > > >
> > > > 804
> > > >
> > > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l
> > > >
> > > > 369
> > > >
> > > > 0 uses of queue(
> > > >
> > > > Roughly 800 pages.
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke <
> > > tobias.gierke@voipfuture.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
> > > > > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a
> very
> > > > > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > Tobias
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <
> > > > > francois.meillet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > > >> François
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> > > reiern70@gmail.com>
> > > > > a écrit :
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> > > > > >>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto:
> > > > > tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing
> > (+1),
> > > > > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> — Martin's list —
> > > > > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove
> > > wicket-http2-jetty
> > > > > /
> > > > > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow /
> wicket-http2-core
> > (I
> > > > > would
> > > > > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> > > > > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is
> > used
> > > > > rarely
> > > > > >>>> over other reporting frameworks)
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move
> > > things
> > > > > to
> > > > > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core
> features.
> > > E.g.
> > > > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>
> > > > > >>>> kind regards
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>> Tobias
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> > > > > >>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> > > > > >>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few
> > places.
> > > > > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup
> > > containers
> > > > > holding
> > > > > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and
> > > boilerplatecode
> > > > > for
> > > > > >>>> us.
> > > > > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since
> IE
> > > is now
> > > > > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still
> > needed....
> > > > > >>>>> Best,
> > > > > >>>>> KB
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > > > > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> > > > > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> > > > > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> > > > > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> > > > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use
> > > queuing
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> Have fun
> > > > > >>>>>>> Sven
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> > > > > thinking/working
> > > > > >>>> on
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If
> > everything
> > > is
> > > > > >>>> covered
> > > > > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to
> 17
> > > (it
> > > > > is
> > > > > >>>> going
> > > > > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS).
> I
> > > expect
> > > > > >>>> Wicket
> > > > > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this
> time
> > > Java
> > > > > 17
> > > > > >>>>>>> should
> > > > > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most
> > > projects
> > > > > still
> > > > > >>>> use
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > > >>>>>>>> Martin
> > > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > > > > >>>>
> > > > > >>> --
> > > > > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Tobias Gierke
> > > > > Software Developer
> > > > >
> > > > > Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
> > > > > Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
> > > > > Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
> > > > > Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best:
> http://wicketinaction.com
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi Martin,
How much work do you think this will imply?
On Tue, Jun 1, 2021 at 5:18 PM Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org> wrote:
> It seems most people prefer to keep <wicket:enclosure>s.
> There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry
> Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10.
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs <li...@selckin.be> wrote:
>
> > We also use enclosure quite a bit
> > Never used the queue feature
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst
> > <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l
> > >
> > > 804
> > >
> > > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l
> > >
> > > 369
> > >
> > > 0 uses of queue(
> > >
> > > Roughly 800 pages.
> > >
> > > Martijn
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke <
> > tobias.gierke@voipfuture.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
> > > > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very
> > > > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Tobias
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > > > >
> > > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <
> > > > francois.meillet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Kind regards,
> > > > >> François
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> > reiern70@gmail.com>
> > > > a écrit :
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Hi,
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> > > > >>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto:
> > > > tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing
> (+1),
> > > > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> — Martin's list —
> > > > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove
> > wicket-http2-jetty
> > > > /
> > > > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core
> (I
> > > > would
> > > > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> > > > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is
> used
> > > > rarely
> > > > >>>> over other reporting frameworks)
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move
> > things
> > > > to
> > > > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features.
> > E.g.
> > > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> kind regards
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> Tobias
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> > > > >>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> > > > >>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few
> places.
> > > > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup
> > containers
> > > > holding
> > > > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and
> > boilerplatecode
> > > > for
> > > > >>>> us.
> > > > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE
> > is now
> > > > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still
> needed....
> > > > >>>>> Best,
> > > > >>>>> KB
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>>
> > > > >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > > > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> > > > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> > > > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> > > > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> > > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use
> > queuing
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> Have fun
> > > > >>>>>>> Sven
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> > > > thinking/working
> > > > >>>> on
> > > > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If
> everything
> > is
> > > > >>>> covered
> > > > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17
> > (it
> > > > is
> > > > >>>> going
> > > > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I
> > expect
> > > > >>>> Wicket
> > > > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time
> > Java
> > > > 17
> > > > >>>>>>> should
> > > > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most
> > projects
> > > > still
> > > > >>>> use
> > > > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > > >>>>>>>> Martin
> > > > >>>>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>>
> > > > >>>>>> --
> > > > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>> --
> > > > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Tobias Gierke
> > > > Software Developer
> > > >
> > > > Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
> > > > Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
> > > > Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
> > > > Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> >
>
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Grigorov <mg...@apache.org>.
It seems most people prefer to keep <wicket:enclosure>s.
There is only one person asking to keep the Component Queueing. Sorry
Tobias Gierke, but it seems we will drop them in Wicket 10.
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 1:38 PM Thomas Matthijs <li...@selckin.be> wrote:
> We also use enclosure quite a bit
> Never used the queue feature
>
>
> Regards,
>
> On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst
> <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l
> >
> > 804
> >
> > *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l
> >
> > 369
> >
> > 0 uses of queue(
> >
> > Roughly 800 pages.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> >
> > On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke <
> tobias.gierke@voipfuture.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
> > > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very
> > > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Tobias
> > >
> > > >
> > > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > > >
> > > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <
> > > francois.meillet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
> > > >>
> > > >> Kind regards,
> > > >> François
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <
> reiern70@gmail.com>
> > > a écrit :
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Hi,
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> > > >>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto:
> > > tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
> > > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> — Martin's list —
> > > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove
> wicket-http2-jetty
> > > /
> > > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I
> > > would
> > > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> > > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used
> > > rarely
> > > >>>> over other reporting frameworks)
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move
> things
> > > to
> > > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features.
> E.g.
> > > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> kind regards
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Tobias
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> > > >>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> > > >>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
> > > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup
> containers
> > > holding
> > > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and
> boilerplatecode
> > > for
> > > >>>> us.
> > > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE
> is now
> > > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
> > > >>>>> Best,
> > > >>>>> KB
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> > > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> > > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> > > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> > > >>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use
> queuing
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Have fun
> > > >>>>>>> Sven
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> > > thinking/working
> > > >>>> on
> > > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything
> is
> > > >>>> covered
> > > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17
> (it
> > > is
> > > >>>> going
> > > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I
> expect
> > > >>>> Wicket
> > > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time
> Java
> > > 17
> > > >>>>>>> should
> > > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most
> projects
> > > still
> > > >>>> use
> > > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > > >>>>>>>> Martin
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > > >>>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tobias Gierke
> > > Software Developer
> > >
> > > Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
> > > Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
> > > Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
> > > Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Thomas Matthijs <li...@selckin.be>.
We also use enclosure quite a bit
Never used the queue feature
Regards,
On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 12:25, Martijn Dashorst
<ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l
>
> 804
>
> *➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l
>
> 369
>
> 0 uses of queue(
>
> Roughly 800 pages.
>
> Martijn
>
>
> On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke <to...@voipfuture.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> > > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
> > FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very
> > large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Tobias
> >
> > >
> > > -Matt Pavlovich
> > >
> > >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <
> > francois.meillet@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
> > >>
> > >> Kind regards,
> > >> François
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>
> > a écrit :
> > >>>
> > >>> Hi,
> > >>>
> > >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> > >>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto:
> > tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi everyone,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
> > >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
> > >>>>
> > >>>> — Martin's list —
> > >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty
> > /
> > >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I
> > would
> > >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> > >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used
> > rarely
> > >>>> over other reporting frameworks)
> > >>>>
> > >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things
> > to
> > >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
> > >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>> kind regards
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Tobias
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> > >>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> > >>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
> > >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers
> > holding
> > >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode
> > for
> > >>>> us.
> > >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
> > >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
> > >>>>> Best,
> > >>>>> KB
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> > >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> > >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> > >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> > >>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Have fun
> > >>>>>>> Sven
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> Hi,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> > thinking/working
> > >>>> on
> > >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> > >>>> covered
> > >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it
> > is
> > >>>> going
> > >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> > >>>> Wicket
> > >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java
> > 17
> > >>>>>>> should
> > >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects
> > still
> > >>>> use
> > >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Regards,
> > >>>>>>>> Martin
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> > >>>>
> > >>> --
> > >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> >
> > --
> > Tobias Gierke
> > Software Developer
> >
> > Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
> > Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
> > Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
> > Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
*➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:enclosure" | wc -l
804
*➜ **git:(**master**)* git grep "wicket:container" | wc -l
369
0 uses of queue(
Roughly 800 pages.
Martijn
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 11:40 AM Tobias Gierke <to...@voipfuture.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
> > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
> FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very
> large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features.
>
> Cheers,
> Tobias
>
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <
> francois.meillet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >> François
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> >>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto:
> tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
> >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
> >>>>
> >>>> — Martin's list —
> >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty
> /
> >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I
> would
> >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used
> rarely
> >>>> over other reporting frameworks)
> >>>>
> >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things
> to
> >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
> >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> kind regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Tobias
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> >>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
> >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers
> holding
> >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode
> for
> >>>> us.
> >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
> >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> KB
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Have fun
> >>>>>>> Sven
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> thinking/working
> >>>> on
> >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> >>>> covered
> >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it
> is
> >>>> going
> >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> >>>> Wicket
> >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java
> 17
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects
> still
> >>>> use
> >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
> --
> Tobias Gierke
> Software Developer
>
> Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
> Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
> Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
> Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
>
>
>
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Tobias Gierke <to...@voipfuture.com>.
Hi,
> We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
FWIW, we heavily use both enclosures and component queueing in a very
large Wicket application (>350 pages) - please keep those features.
Cheers,
Tobias
>
> -Matt Pavlovich
>
>> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> François
>>
>>
>>
>>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
>>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <ma...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
>>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
>>>>
>>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
>>>>
>>>> — Martin's list —
>>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty /
>>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would
>>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
>>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely
>>>> over other reporting frameworks)
>>>>
>>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to
>>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
>>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>> kind regards
>>>>
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
>>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
>>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding
>>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for
>>>> us.
>>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
>>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> KB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
>>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have fun
>>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
>>>> covered
>>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
>>>> going
>>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
>>>> Wicket
>>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
>>>> use
>>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
--
Tobias Gierke
Software Developer
Voipfuture GmbH Wendenstr. 4 20097 Hamburg Germany
Phone +49 40 688 9001 64 Fax +49 40 688 9001 99
Managing Directors Jan Bastian Eyal Ullert
Commercial Court AG Hamburg HRB 109896 VAT ID DE263738086
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Chris Colman <ch...@stepaheadsoftware.com>.
On 11/05/2021 1:17 pm, Martin Terra wrote:
> We're still on Wicket 1.4,
Now, I don't feel so bad about us still being on Wicket 6! :)
But we've got big plans to move to Wicket 7 soon :)
We started on Wicket 1.4 many years ago but moved to 6 quite some time
ago - from memory it wasn't very hard to migrate though an employee did
it, not I was shielded from any pain :)
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Martin Terra <ma...@koodaripalvelut.com>.
We're still on Wicket 1.4, we find enclosures convenient and we don't have
access to queuing (though we originally requested for it). What would
matter to us is rendering performance/efficiency.
So far upgrading has been more effort than it's worth to justify, but it's
been fun watching the speed of upgrades. Keep it up ;)
**
Martin
ti 11. toukok. 2021 klo 5.05 Chris Colman (chrisc@stepaheadsoftware.com)
kirjoitti:
> Queuing - have not used it yet. Never really had a problem with 'adding'
> components in the traditional way. Sometimes when we change
> layouts/component hierarchies I feel that most of these changes are non
> trivial and the queuing feature may not have helped in these scenarios
> anyway. Sounds ok for the simple layout changes though.
>
> Enclosures - widespread use of these in our apps. I find them very
> convenient.
>
> On 11/05/2021 6:23 am, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> > We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
> >
> > -Matt Pavlovich
> >
> >> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <
> francois.meillet@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
> >>
> >> Kind regards,
> >> François
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>
> a écrit :
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> >>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <mailto:
> tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi everyone,
> >>>>
> >>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
> >>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
> >>>>
> >>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
> >>>>
> >>>> — Martin's list —
> >>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty
> /
> >>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I
> would
> >>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> >>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used
> rarely
> >>>> over other reporting frameworks)
> >>>>
> >>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things
> to
> >>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
> >>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> kind regards
> >>>>
> >>>> Tobias
> >>>>
> >>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> >>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> >>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
> >>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers
> holding
> >>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode
> for
> >>>> us.
> >>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
> >>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
> >>>>> Best,
> >>>>> KB
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> >>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> >>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> >>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Have fun
> >>>>>>> Sven
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> >>>>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start
> thinking/working
> >>>> on
> >>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> >>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> >>>> covered
> >>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> >>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it
> is
> >>>> going
> >>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> >>>> Wicket
> >>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java
> 17
> >>>>>>> should
> >>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects
> still
> >>>> use
> >>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>> Martin
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> >>>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Chris Colman <ch...@stepaheadsoftware.com>.
Queuing - have not used it yet. Never really had a problem with 'adding'
components in the traditional way. Sometimes when we change
layouts/component hierarchies I feel that most of these changes are non
trivial and the queuing feature may not have helped in these scenarios
anyway. Sounds ok for the simple layout changes though.
Enclosures - widespread use of these in our apps. I find them very
convenient.
On 11/05/2021 6:23 am, Matt Pavlovich wrote:
> We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
>
> -Matt Pavlovich
>
>> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> François
>>
>>
>>
>>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
>>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <ma...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>>
>>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
>>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
>>>>
>>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
>>>>
>>>> — Martin's list —
>>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty /
>>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would
>>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
>>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely
>>>> over other reporting frameworks)
>>>>
>>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to
>>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
>>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
>>>
>>>
>>>> kind regards
>>>>
>>>> Tobias
>>>>
>>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
>>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
>>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding
>>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for
>>>> us.
>>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
>>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> KB
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
>>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
>>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have fun
>>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
>>>> on
>>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
>>>> covered
>>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
>>>> going
>>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
>>>> Wicket
>>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
>>>> use
>>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Matt Pavlovich <ma...@gmail.com>.
We do not use enclosures or component queueing either.
-Matt Pavlovich
> On Apr 24, 2021, at 3:56 PM, Francois Meillet <fr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I don't use enclosures and component queueing
>
> Kind regards,
> François
>
>
>
>> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
>> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <ma...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi everyone,
>>>
>>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
>>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
>>>
>>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
>>>
>>> — Martin's list —
>>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty /
>>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would
>>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
>>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely
>>> over other reporting frameworks)
>>>
>>
>> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to
>> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
>> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
>>
>>
>>> kind regards
>>>
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
>>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
>>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding
>>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for
>>> us.
>>>>
>>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
>>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>> KB
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
>>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
>>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Have fun
>>>>>> Sven
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
>>> on
>>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
>>> covered
>>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
>>> going
>>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
>>> Wicket
>>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
>>>>>> should
>>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
>>> use
>>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Francois Meillet <fr...@gmail.com>.
I don't use enclosures and component queueing
Kind regards,
François
> Le 24 avr. 2021 à 20:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com> a écrit :
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> <tobiassoloschenko@googlemail.com.invalid <ma...@googlemail.com.invalid>> wrote:
>
>> Hi everyone,
>>
>> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
>> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
>>
>> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
>>
>> — Martin's list —
>> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty /
>> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would
>> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
>> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely
>> over other reporting frameworks)
>>
>
> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to
> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
>
>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>>> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
>> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
>> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding
>> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for
>> us.
>>>
>>> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
>> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> KB
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>>>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
>>>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>>>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
>>>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Have fun
>>>>> Sven
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
>> on
>>>>>> Wicket 10 ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>>>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
>> covered
>>>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>>>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
>> going
>>>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
>> Wicket
>>>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
>>>>> should
>>>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
>> use
>>>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>>
>>
>
> --
> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Maxim Solodovnik <so...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, 25 Apr 2021 at 01:52, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
<re...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
> <to...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
> > enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
> >
> > In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
> >
> > — Martin's list —
> > 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty /
> > wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would
> > prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> > 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely
> > over other reporting frameworks)
> >
>
> I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to
> wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
> things like treetables and so on. Correct?
I would start dropping wicketstuff modules .... :))
Too much of them
>
>
> > kind regards
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > > Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> > korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
> > Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding
> > the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for
> > us.
> > >
> > > Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
> > definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > KB
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > >> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> > >> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> > >> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> > >> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Have fun
> > >>> Sven
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > >>>> Hi,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
> > on
> > >>>> Wicket 10 ?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> > covered
> > >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
> > going
> > >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> > Wicket
> > >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> > >>> should
> > >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
> > use
> > >>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Regards,
> > >>>> Martin
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
> >
> >
>
> --
> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
--
Best regards,
Maxim
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 2:13 PM Tobias Soloschenko
<to...@googlemail.com.invalid> wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1),
> enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
>
> In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
>
> — Martin's list —
> 4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty /
> wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would
> prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
> 5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely
> over other reporting frameworks)
>
I have the impression the practice before "always" was to move things to
wicket-stuff once they were no longer supported as core features. E.g.
things like treetables and so on. Correct?
> kind regards
>
> Tobias
>
> > Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <
> korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de>:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places.
> Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding
> the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for
> us.
> >
> > Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now
> definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
> >
> > Best,
> > KB
> >
> >
> > ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> >> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> >> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> >> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> >> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> >
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
> >>
> >>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Have fun
> >>> Sven
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working
> on
> >>>> Wicket 10 ?
> >>>>
> >>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> >>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is
> covered
> >>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> >>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is
> going
> >>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect
> Wicket
> >>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> >>> should
> >>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still
> use
> >>>> Java 8 for some reason.
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Martin
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
>
>
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Tobias Soloschenko <to...@googlemail.com.INVALID>.
Hi everyone,
from my side I also would prefer removing component queuing (+1), enclosures I would prefer a rework and not to remove it (+0).
In addition to Martin’s list I would add some points
— Martin's list —
4) Move wicket-http2-servlet4 into core and remove wicket-http2-jetty / wicket-http2-tomcat / wicket-http2-undertow / wicket-http2-core (I would prefer doing it in 10 over 9)
5) May remove wicket-metrics (I have the feeling that this is used rarely over other reporting frameworks)
kind regards
Tobias
> Am 24.04.2021 um 11:07 schrieb Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>:
>
> Hi,
>
> we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for us.
>
> Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
>
> Best,
> KB
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
>> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
>> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
>> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
>> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
>>
>>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>>
>>
>> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Have fun
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on
>>>> Wicket 10 ?
>>>>
>>>> Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>>>>
>>>> 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>>>> 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered
>>>> by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>>>> 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going
>>>> to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket
>>>> 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
>>> should
>>>> be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use
>>>> Java 8 for some reason.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Korbinian Bachl <ko...@whiskyworld.de>.
Hi,
we dont use queueing but we use enclosures in quite a few places. Getting rid of it would mean we have to switch to markup containers holding the content and add additonal layer of complexity and boilerplatecode for us.
Beside that: can wicket 10 finally get rid of jQuery? Since IE is now definitely dead I dont see any reason why this is still needed....
Best,
KB
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro"
> An: dev@wicket.apache.org
> Gesendet: Freitag, 23. April 2021 12:04:34
> Betreff: Re: Wicket 10 ideas
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier wrote:
>
>> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>>
>
> It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
>
>
>>
>> Have fun
>> Sven
>>
>>
>> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on
>> > Wicket 10 ?
>> >
>> > Here are few ideas what to break :-)
>> >
>> > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
>> > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered
>> > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
>> > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going
>> > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket
>> > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
>> should
>> > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use
>> > Java 8 for some reason.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Martin
>> >
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Re: Wicket 10 ideas
Posted by Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro <re...@gmail.com>.
Hi,
On Fri, Apr 23, 2021 at 11:58 AM Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net> wrote:
> x) remove/rework enclosures and component queueing.
>
It would be interesting to know how many people really use queuing
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
>
> On 02.04.21 13:58, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Now since we have 9.3.0 released is it time to start thinking/working on
> > Wicket 10 ?
> >
> > Here are few ideas what to break :-)
> >
> > 1) Move to Servlet 5.x, i.e. jakarta.servlet.**
> > 2) Use @Inject + @Named instead of @SpringBean. If everything is covered
> > by @Inject we may deprecate @SpringBean in 9.x
> > 3) Depending on the release date we may even bump Java to 17 (it is going
> > to be released this September and it is going to be LTS). I expect Wicket
> > 10.0.0 to be released in 1-2 years from now, so by this time Java 17
> should
> > be mainstream! :-) I know that this is too brave. Most projects still use
> > Java 8 for some reason.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Martin
> >
>
--
Regards - Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro