Re: [VOTE] WICKET-6322 lambda factories for behaviors

[Andrea Del Bene <an...@gmail.com>]

+1 for v

But I'd also like to move factory methods for components to WicketStuff.
For example we could create something like this:
https://github.com/rodrigouchoa/wicket-lambda

On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Vit Rozkovec <ro...@email.cz> wrote:

> Hi,
> why not move all lambdas functionality to wicket stuff..?
> This way core stays clean and who wants can use them anyway..
>
> Vit
>
>
> On 02/28/2017 07:36 PM, Tobias Soloschenko wrote:
>
>> I would keep them but try to find good names so that it is clear what
>> they do.
>>
>> But you know me - I often create to code intensive APIs ;-D
>>
>> kind regards
>>
>> Tobias
>>
>> Am 28.02.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>:
>>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> currently we have 15 behavior factory methods in
>>> org.apache.wicket.lambda.Lambdas, all forwarding to the actual
>>> implementations in different behavior classes.
>>> 4 of these methods require two lambda parameters (success- and
>>> error-handler), something which has already been criticized as being
>>> unclear and hard to name well.
>>>
>>> This is a vote on what to do with these factory methods in Wicket 8.x:
>>>
>>> a) remove them all
>>>
>>> b) remove the 4 'complicated' ones (with more than one lambda argument)
>>>
>>> c) keep them all as they are
>>>
>>> v) remove Lambdas class but keep factory methods in the behavior classes
>>>
>>> w) remove factory methods from behavior classes but keep them in Lambdas
>>> class.
>>>
>>> We'll need at least 3 binding votes to go from here, let's see what we
>>> can agree on.
>>>
>>> Have fun
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>

Re: [VOTE] WICKET-6322 lambda factories for behaviors

[Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>]

I'd vote for b+v (remove the complicated ones and remove the Lambdas facade)

Have fun
Sven


On 02.03.2017 11:00, Andrea Del Bene wrote:
> +1 for v
>
> But I'd also like to move factory methods for components to WicketStuff.
> For example we could create something like this:
> https://github.com/rodrigouchoa/wicket-lambda
>
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 9:21 PM, Vit Rozkovec <ro...@email.cz> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>> why not move all lambdas functionality to wicket stuff..?
>> This way core stays clean and who wants can use them anyway..
>>
>> Vit
>>
>>
>> On 02/28/2017 07:36 PM, Tobias Soloschenko wrote:
>>
>>> I would keep them but try to find good names so that it is clear what
>>> they do.
>>>
>>> But you know me - I often create to code intensive APIs ;-D
>>>
>>> kind regards
>>>
>>> Tobias
>>>
>>> Am 28.02.2017 um 19:16 schrieb Sven Meier <sv...@meiers.net>:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> currently we have 15 behavior factory methods in
>>>> org.apache.wicket.lambda.Lambdas, all forwarding to the actual
>>>> implementations in different behavior classes.
>>>> 4 of these methods require two lambda parameters (success- and
>>>> error-handler), something which has already been criticized as being
>>>> unclear and hard to name well.
>>>>
>>>> This is a vote on what to do with these factory methods in Wicket 8.x:
>>>>
>>>> a) remove them all
>>>>
>>>> b) remove the 4 'complicated' ones (with more than one lambda argument)
>>>>
>>>> c) keep them all as they are
>>>>
>>>> v) remove Lambdas class but keep factory methods in the behavior classes
>>>>
>>>> w) remove factory methods from behavior classes but keep them in Lambdas
>>>> class.
>>>>
>>>> We'll need at least 3 binding votes to go from here, let's see what we
>>>> can agree on.
>>>>
>>>> Have fun
>>>> Sven
>>>>
>>>>