wicket-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Martijn Dashorst <martijn.dasho...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JRebel and wicket
Date Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:49:30 GMT
Well, the compiler will give you an error when you do:

final String foo = "Foo";

foo = "Bar";

The difference is in naming: add() currently does exactly what it
says. addOrReplace does also exactly what it says. Having clear
meaningful names is a good thing to have.

Deprecating add in favor of addOrReplace() would have a different
effect: more verbose (but meaningful) code...

Martijn

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 2:40 PM, Korbinian Bachl - privat
<korbinian.bachl@whiskyworld.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I don't use jRebel but the differentiation of the add and addOrReplace
> method is something that I still don't understand what it's good for.
>
> Actually if you do in java:
>
> String foo;
>
> foo = new String("world");
>
> no one ever would think about throwing an error because one does
>
> foo = new String("no World"); later on
>
> This add(new Label("foo","message")); should behave IMHO the same as
> overwriting objects (and here we just put a new object to the add method) is
> just natural in java as everyone of us does it every day.
>
> IMHO: make addOrReplace deprecated in next 1.4 release and give add the same
> behaviour as current addOrReplace; in 1.5 addOrReplace can be stripped
> completely;
>
> my 2 cents - now flame on me :)
>
>
>
> Am 18.11.10 14:25, schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> The workaround is indeed to go back to a different page and do the
>> appropriate clicks again.
>>
>> Martijn
>



-- 
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com

Mime
View raw message