Renaming IInitializer?

[Major Péter]

Hi,

since IInitializer now also works as an IDestroyer, wouldn't be
ApplicationContextListener a better name for it? (based on
ServletContextListener)

Regards,
Peter

[James Carman]

ApplicationLifecycleListener?
On Jan 18, 2011 8:14 AM, "Major Péter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since IInitializer now also works as an IDestroyer, wouldn't be
> ApplicationContextListener a better name for it? (based on
> ServletContextListener)
>
> Regards,
> Peter

[Martin Grigorov-4]

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>wrote:

> ApplicationLifecycleListener?
> On Jan 18, 2011 8:14 AM, "Major Péter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > since IInitializer now also works as an IDestroyer, wouldn't be
> > ApplicationContextListener a better name for it? (based on
> > ServletContextListener)
>

Renaming classes will make the migration harder.
Unless it is really needed I prefer to keep it as it is.

Or maybe we can introduce new interface - ApplicationLifetimeListener that
just extends IInitializer and make IInitializer deprecated, and remove it in
1.6.0.

> >
> > Regards,
> > Peter
>

[Eelco Hillenius]

Doesn't solve anything in particular, right? Personally, I think the
current names are fine.

Eelco

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Martin Grigorov <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 3:02 PM, James Carman <[hidden email]>wrote:
>
>> ApplicationLifecycleListener?
>> On Jan 18, 2011 8:14 AM, "Major Péter" <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > since IInitializer now also works as an IDestroyer, wouldn't be
>> > ApplicationContextListener a better name for it? (based on
>> > ServletContextListener)
>>
>
> Renaming classes will make the migration harder.
> Unless it is really needed I prefer to keep it as it is.
>
> Or maybe we can introduce new interface - ApplicationLifetimeListener that
> just extends IInitializer and make IInitializer deprecated, and remove it in
> 1.6.0.
>
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Peter
>>
>

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Eelco Hillenius <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Doesn't solve anything in particular, right? Personally, I think the
> current names are fine.
>

We've always opted for specific, descriptive names, even when grossly
verbose :)  I, too, think we should rename it.  I like the approach of
moving it to an interface that extends IInitializer, deprecate and remove in
1.6.  Although, I feel like a 1.5 name change would be absolutely fine -
even with an RC out.  It's a simple find/replace - not a complicated change.

--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://wickettraining.com
*Need a CMS for Wicket?  Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*

[Igor Vaynberg-2]

you will also have to change the value in wicket.properties

it shouldnt say initializer=<classname> anymore then.

-igor

On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Jeremy Thomerson
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Eelco Hillenius <[hidden email]
>> wrote:
>
>> Doesn't solve anything in particular, right? Personally, I think the
>> current names are fine.
>>
>
> We've always opted for specific, descriptive names, even when grossly
> verbose :)  I, too, think we should rename it.  I like the approach of
> moving it to an interface that extends IInitializer, deprecate and remove in
> 1.6.  Although, I feel like a 1.5 name change would be absolutely fine -
> even with an RC out.  It's a simple find/replace - not a complicated change.
>
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://wickettraining.com
> *Need a CMS for Wicket?  Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*
>

[Eelco Hillenius]

> We've always opted for specific, descriptive names, even when grossly
> verbose :)  I, too, think we should rename it.  I like the approach of
> moving it to an interface that extends IInitializer, deprecate and remove in
> 1.6.  Although, I feel like a 1.5 name change would be absolutely fine -
> even with an RC out.  It's a simple find/replace - not a complicated change.

Simple maybe, but it does break the public API and some documentation
(I think Wicket In Action mentions it), and that for no benefit other
than that some people like the name better (you amongst others) and
other people don't (me, Jonathan I'm guessing). I don't think it is
worth it.

Eelco