taking the I out of Interface

[igor.vaynberg]

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

[Matej Knopp]

+1 for the I to go away.

Feels too foreign. And against conventions.

-Matej

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 12:28 AM, Igor Vaynberg <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
>

[Johan Edstrom]

+1

On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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

[ronaldtm]

-1

It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.



On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:

> +1
>
>
> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>
>

[Matej Knopp]

1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.

-Matej

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:

> -1
>
> It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>>
>>
>

[Altuğ B. Altıntaş]

what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
It breaks compatibility

-1

Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)

2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>

> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>
> -Matej
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
> > -1
> >
> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
> >
> >> +1
> >>
> >>
> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
> >>>
> >>
> >
>

--
Altuğ.

[Matej Knopp]

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...> wrote:
> what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
> It breaks compatibility
There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
anyone from migrating application to 1.5.

-Matej

>
> -1
>
> Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>
> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>
>> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
>> > -1
>> >
>> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>> >
>> >> +1
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Altuğ.
>

[Ryan Gravener-3]

-1  It's nice to know what is an interface by seeing the I.  Also for
IDEs its easier to find the class I'm looking for.


Ryan Gravener
http://bit.ly/no_word_docs



On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:

> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...> wrote:
>> what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
>> It breaks compatibility
> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>
> -Matej
>
>>
>> -1
>>
>> Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>>
>> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>>
>>> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>>> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>>>
>>> -Matej
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
>>> > -1
>>> >
>>> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> +1
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Altuğ.
>>
>

[Altuğ B. Altıntaş]

Also It brings extra learning curve process;  i thinks that's the major
update
IModel will be Model ? himm

2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>

> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...>
> wrote:
> > what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
> > It breaks compatibility
> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>
> -Matej
>
> >
> > -1
> >
> > Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
> >
> > 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
> >
> >> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
> >> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
> >>
> >> -Matej
> >>
> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
> >> > -1
> >> >
> >> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> +1
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
> >> >>>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Altuğ.
> >
>

--
Altuğ.

[igor.vaynberg]

i suppose we should start naming all our abstract classes with an A,
so maybe AListView, nice to know its abstract and you have to
implement something just by looking at the class name :)

personally when i am looking for a requestcycleprocessor something its
a lot easier to type in RequestCycleProcessor into the ide and not
have to guess if there is an I in the front.

-igor

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM, Ryan Gravener <ryan@...> wrote:

> -1  It's nice to know what is an interface by seeing the I.  Also for
> IDEs its easier to find the class I'm looking for.
>
>
> Ryan Gravener
> http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...> wrote:
>>> what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
>>> It breaks compatibility
>> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
>> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
>> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
>> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
>> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
>> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>>>
>>> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>>>
>>>> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>>>> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>>>>
>>>> -Matej
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
>>>> > -1
>>>> >
>>>> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> +1
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Altuğ.
>>>
>>
>

[igor.vaynberg]

thats what migration notes are for

most people do not use the I convention in their apps, so it is pretty
annoying for them to deal with this. and for those who do they are
already used to doing something different because they are using other
libs that do not use the convention.

-igor

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 5:48 PM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...> wrote:

> Also It brings extra learning curve process;  i thinks that's the major
> update
> IModel will be Model ? himm
>
> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...>
>> wrote:
>> > what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
>> > It breaks compatibility
>> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
>> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
>> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
>> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
>> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
>> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>> >
>> > -1
>> >
>> > Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>> >
>> > 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>> >
>> >> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>> >> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>> >>
>> >> -Matej
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
>> >> > -1
>> >> >
>> >> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...>
>> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> +1
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Altuğ.
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Altuğ.
>

[igor.vaynberg]

we dont do these annoying refactors for no reason. we do not like
something about the code and want to fix it.

as far as migration pains we can ease that.

take IRequestCycleProcessor as an example.

we can create

interface RequestCycleProcessor extends IRequestCycleProcessor and
deprecate IRequestCycleProcessor.

release this as 1.5.0.migration jar and then release 1.5.0 with
IRequestCycleProcessor removed. this gives you as much time as you
want to migrate your code.

-igor

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 4:14 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:

> -1
>
> It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>>
>>
>

[igor.vaynberg]

for people who are going to say that this is going to break compatibility:

please look through your code and count the number of places where you
implement a wicket-specific interface directly. we would like to know
how often and what these interfaces are.

thanks,

-igor

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Igor Vaynberg <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
>

[Matej Knopp]

Easier? How's that? I find it really annoying that when I'm looking
for something and I have to know upfront whether it is an interface or
a class. And when reading the code, what difference does it really
make if it is interface or a class? By that logic we should start
using hungarian notation. You could easily see what type the class
member is...

-Matej

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ryan Gravener <ryan@...> wrote:

> -1  It's nice to know what is an interface by seeing the I.  Also for
> IDEs its easier to find the class I'm looking for.
>
>
> Ryan Gravener
> http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...> wrote:
>>> what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
>>> It breaks compatibility
>> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
>> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
>> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
>> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
>> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
>> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>>>
>>> -1
>>>
>>> Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>>>
>>> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>>>
>>>> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>>>> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>>>>
>>>> -Matej
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
>>>> > -1
>>>> >
>>>> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> +1
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Altuğ.
>>>
>>
>

[Ryan Gravener-3]

It's just my preference.  IModel / Model vs. Model / ObjectModel or
Model / ModelImpl

Ryan Gravener
http://bit.ly/no_word_docs



On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:

> Easier? How's that? I find it really annoying that when I'm looking
> for something and I have to know upfront whether it is an interface or
> a class. And when reading the code, what difference does it really
> make if it is interface or a class? By that logic we should start
> using hungarian notation. You could easily see what type the class
> member is...
>
> -Matej
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ryan Gravener <ryan@...> wrote:
>> -1  It's nice to know what is an interface by seeing the I.  Also for
>> IDEs its easier to find the class I'm looking for.
>>
>>
>> Ryan Gravener
>> http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...> wrote:
>>>> what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
>>>> It breaks compatibility
>>> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
>>> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
>>> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
>>> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
>>> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
>>> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>>>
>>> -Matej
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -1
>>>>
>>>> Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>>>>
>>>> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>>>>
>>>>> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>>>>> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matej
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
>>>>> > -1
>>>>> >
>>>>> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> +1
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Altuğ.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Matej Knopp]

It's not just the models. There are plenty of internal interfaces in
wicket that have the I prefix. And it's not even consistent. Some
interfaces have it some don't. So every time I'm looking for something
not only do I have to know if it is an interface but I also have to
know whether it starts with an I, which not all do.

As for the naming, IModel/Model is what we have now. Apart from not
being very java like the name Model doesn't say much about it's
nature.
Model/ModelImpl is probably even worse. Everytime I see class that
ends with Impl I have to ask myself whether there really was a point
in extracting the interface.

I think Model (interface) / ObjectModel is the best alternative.
ObjectModel says enough about the implementation - that it holds a
single object. But I don't think this thread is about actual naming.
It's more about pros & cons of the prefix.

-Matej

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Ryan Gravener <ryan@...> wrote:

> It's just my preference.  IModel / Model vs. Model / ObjectModel or
> Model / ModelImpl
>
> Ryan Gravener
> http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
>> Easier? How's that? I find it really annoying that when I'm looking
>> for something and I have to know upfront whether it is an interface or
>> a class. And when reading the code, what difference does it really
>> make if it is interface or a class? By that logic we should start
>> using hungarian notation. You could easily see what type the class
>> member is...
>>
>> -Matej
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:55 AM, Ryan Gravener <ryan@...> wrote:
>>> -1  It's nice to know what is an interface by seeing the I.  Also for
>>> IDEs its easier to find the class I'm looking for.
>>>
>>>
>>> Ryan Gravener
>>> http://bit.ly/no_word_docs
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM, Altuğ B. Altıntaş <altuga@...> wrote:
>>>>> what about upgrading projects from 1.4 to 1.5  ?
>>>>> It breaks compatibility
>>>> There will be other breaks. This is not a minor update. Breaks
>>>> compatibility is hardly a valid argument here. We will break
>>>> compatibility one way or another. But we will also provide migration
>>>> path. Replacing Model with ObjectModel and then IModel with Model in
>>>> code (just an made up example) is hardly a task that would prevent
>>>> anyone from migrating application to 1.5.
>>>>
>>>> -Matej
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -1
>>>>>
>>>>> Not: i am not a *committer* but loves wicket :)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2009/10/3 Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.5 is going to be neither source nor binary compatible. And I
>>>>>> wouldn't say that consistency and conventions is not a reason.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Matej
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:14 AM, tetsuo <ronald.tetsuo@...> wrote:
>>>>>> > -1
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > It breaks compatibility for absolutely no reason.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Johan Edstrom <seijoed@...> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> +1
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Oct 2, 2009, at 17:28, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Altuğ.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

[Eelco Hillenius]

-1

Breaks compatibility for nothing other than a superficial
'improvement'. Also, I do see the I used in other projects, and
actually like the convention (a whole lot better than using
AbstractFoo and Fooimpl fwiw).

Eelco

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Igor Vaynberg <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
>

[jthomerson]

-1 as well.  Since the vote seems to be nothing more than "I like it" or "I
don't like it"....  I like it.  I use it in my projects as well.

--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com



On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<eelco.hillenius@...>wrote:

> -1
>
> Breaks compatibility for nothing other than a superficial
> 'improvement'. Also, I do see the I used in other projects, and
> actually like the convention (a whole lot better than using
> AbstractFoo and Fooimpl fwiw).
>
> Eelco
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Igor Vaynberg <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
> >
>

[Matej Knopp]

I think that IFoo and Foo is every bit as bad as Foo and FooImpl. Both
show rather poor choice of naming. Same goes for IModel and Model.

-Matej

On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Eelco Hillenius
<eelco.hillenius@...> wrote:

> -1
>
> Breaks compatibility for nothing other than a superficial
> 'improvement'. Also, I do see the I used in other projects, and
> actually like the convention (a whole lot better than using
> AbstractFoo and Fooimpl fwiw).
>
> Eelco
>
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>
>

[Johan Edstrom-3]

Oh, +42 on removing I, and +42 on removing *Impl

On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:17 PM, Matej Knopp wrote:

> I think that IFoo and Foo is every bit as bad as Foo and FooImpl. Both
> show rather poor choice of naming. Same goes for IModel and Model.
>
> -Matej
>
> On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 5:02 AM, Eelco Hillenius
> <eelco.hillenius@...> wrote:
>> -1
>>
>> Breaks compatibility for nothing other than a superficial
>> 'improvement'. Also, I do see the I used in other projects, and
>> actually like the convention (a whole lot better than using
>> AbstractFoo and Fooimpl fwiw).
>>
>> Eelco
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Igor Vaynberg <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
>>>
>>

Johan Edstrom

joed@...

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary  
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759