wicket-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sven Meier <s...@meiers.net>
Subject Re: taking the I out of Interface
Date Sun, 04 Oct 2009 15:47:40 GMT
So ObjectModel will hold a single object only? What about lists and 
IMHO the "Object.." prefix has no benefit.

Why not drop the Model class altogether?
Its static helper methods could be located in a new non-instantiable 
class Models (note the trailing 's') because there's nothing more 
exciting the Model class currently provides.

My 2 cents


Matej Knopp wrote:
> Should we rename IModel to Model we would also have to rename Model to
> something. ObjectModel sounds like a really good name to me because it
> says what it does. Holds single object.
> Locator sounds really weird. I think renaming Model to Locator would
> be hell lot more confusing than renaming IModel to Model.
> -Matej
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Martin Grigorov <mcgregory@e-card.bg> wrote:
>> +1 for removing 'I'. I personally do like it but since this is what the
>> committers prefer than I'm fine.
>> -1 for renaming Model to anything else.
>> @Erik: it'd be interesting to be at a course of jWeekend where you'll
>> explain to the attendees "Wicket consists of components, models, ... and
>> the basic model is Locator (and all implementations end with **Model)".
>> I'll find it confusing.
>> I hope Wicket 1.5 will not rename all existing Model implementations.
>> A side note: some third party projects already depends on 'I' classes.
>> For example Terracotta depends on IClusterable for its Wicket module.
>> Take this into account as well.
>> El dom, 04-10-2009 a las 13:55 +0200, Erik van Oosten escribió:
>>> I agree, the I is useless. Provided there is a good migration I'd say: +1.
>>> I also agree with Martin, lets change IModel to Locator while we're at it!
>>> Regards,
>>>      Erik.
>>> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>> is it perhaps time to take the I out of our interface names? wicket
>>>> has been the only project i have ever worked on/used that follows this
>>>> convention, is it time for a change?
>>>> this is not meant as a flamewar about which convention is teh
>>>> aw3s0m3st, simply a discussion of whether or not we should switch.
>>>> -igor

View raw message