wicket-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carl-Eric Menzel <cmen...@wicketbuch.de>
Subject Re: JRebel and wicket
Date Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:19:59 GMT
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:25:40 +0100
Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dashorst@gmail.com> wrote:

> Relaxing the add() method has been proposed before (by Eelco). It is
> not something new, and if it helps people using jrebel to improve
> their productivity, that would be a great side effect.

I agree it would be a good side effect, but not a change worth doing
just for the benefit of JRebel :) - only if the change adds something
worthwhile on its own.

I just googled for Eelco's original proposal to give add() the
semantics of addOrReplace(), since I didn't even know about that
proposal.

I agree with what you say about "final" and the clear semantics of
add() and addOrReplace(). I like the fact that with the current
semantics I can choose whether I want to definitely add (and get an
exception in case of a bug) or whether I want to, well, add or
replace :-)

Usually I prefer a slight bit of additional typing over an
ambiguous/unclear API.

Maybe someone who uses JRebel (I don't) can ask the JRebel guys about
better support for this.

Carl-Eric
www.wicketbuch.de

Mime
View raw message