wicket-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik van Oosten <e.vanoos...@grons.nl>
Subject Re: taking the I out of Interface
Date Sun, 04 Oct 2009 18:33:57 GMT
Martin Grigorov wrote:
> @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.
See earlier threads about this. Martin did not come with this suggestion 
out of the blue. Just a brief summary: in any non-Wicket application the 
term 'model' refer to objects containing business data, often entities. 
In Wicket apps these are called model-objects. So, Wicket's models are 
not really 'model's but a 'proxy', a 'locator' or whatever that hide the 
'real' model.

So I would explain something like: "Wicket consist of components and 
locators (and all implementations of locator end with **Locator as they 
have been renamed too). The locators provide access to your business 
data, the models."

And then I would go: "For those that still work with pre-1.5 this will 
be hellishly confusing as they were mistakenly called model and 
model-object before."

Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
> I think he meant rename IModel to Locator.  I think that Locator or
> DataProxy or something more accurately describes it
I like DataProxy too.
> (nobody ever understands
> IModel right off the bat).  But I don't think changing it is worth the costs
> it would incur.
Well, if we can drop the 'I', we could drop IModel as well....
But you are right, it is a big change /which can only be done if there 
is a good migration path/.

So lets please go to the original subject and forget about this.


Erik van Oosten

View raw message