|
Hi,
Let discuss (again) what will be included in Wicket 6.0 so we can schedule what and when will be implemented. Here is how I see it: - use JQuery as backing library - already in master/trunk - rework Wicket Ajax to use event registration instead of inline attributes (like onclick, onchange, ...) - already in master, needs to be polished - add support for resource grouping/bundling and dependency management - already in master - rework IHeaderResponse to work with HeaderItem to make it easier to render new elements/attributes - already in master - add support for @javax.inject.Inject - in master, but may need more work. Need to decide how much will be changed here - add wicket-cdi - only if JBoss publish CDI jars in Maven central repo - component queuing - @ivaynberg: shall we include that or it is not stable ? - before RC1 rename packages so there are no overlaps in different jars (OSGi friendly) This is my list. I suggest to release M1 sooner to get more feedback earlier. -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com |
|
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 6:50 AM, Martin Grigorov <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi, > > Let discuss (again) what will be included in Wicket 6.0 so we can > schedule what and when will be implemented. > > Here is how I see it: > - use JQuery as backing library - already in master/trunk > - rework Wicket Ajax to use event registration instead of inline > attributes (like onclick, onchange, ...) - already in master, needs to > be polished > - add support for resource grouping/bundling and dependency management > - already in master > - rework IHeaderResponse to work with HeaderItem to make it easier to > render new elements/attributes - already in master > - add support for @javax.inject.Inject - in master, but may need more > work. Need to decide how much will be changed here > - add wicket-cdi - only if JBoss publish CDI jars in Maven central repo cdi and weld jars are in central. seam jars are not there yet. we use seam for cross-container conversation management which is not pat of cdi 1.0 but is coming in 1.1. if seam jars are not there yet before we are ready for M1 i can put the weld-specific code into the distro. that way we can at least support cdi backed by weld which will be the majority of cases anyways. > - component queuing - @ivaynberg: shall we include that or it is not stable ? its not stable yet. as i was implementing component queuing i realized that by itself it is not enough. sure, we can dequeue components, but it doesnt solve the myriad of other problems we have - namely things like borders and enclosures. what i am trying to do is to make sure that if a queued component happens to be inside an enclosure or another resolver-based component it is dequeued into that component instead. resolved components will no longer be "auto", they will be kept in the hierarchy across requests. this will finally solve the enclosure+form components and other headaches introduced by auto components. however, bringing resolvers into the dequeuing process poses two complications: * where as before dequeuing was done by iterating queued components and finding them in markup, because we are now also resolving components we need to iterate the markup instead and either dequeue or resolve * IMarkup and resolvers are not exactly built to work with components that are kept across requests i am going to get Juergen's help over christmas to try and resolve this. i think if we do crack this it is going to make a lot of things much easier and remove a lot of surprises users encounter with resolvers and auto components. also, if this work we can consider making add() work like queue() in wicket 7. a very rough impl is here: https://github.com/ivaynberg/wicket/tree/sandbox/hierarchy-completion and https://github.com/ivaynberg/wicket/blob/sandbox/hierarchy-completion/wicket-core/src/test/java/org/apache/wicket/hierarchy/complete/HierarchyCompletionTest.java i will probably move the branch over into our git repo soon. -igor > - before RC1 rename packages so there are no overlaps in different > jars (OSGi friendly) > > This is my list. > > I suggest to release M1 sooner to get more feedback earlier. > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com |
|
In reply to this post by Martin Grigorov-4
I would love to have a refactor of the Treegrid (see WICKET-1600) implemented with the wicket-tree implementation Sven Meier has done.
It would be very nice to use a TreeProvider instead of the swing TreeNode. |
|
Hi Gabriel,
there are several components which are in need of an overhaul, especially Javascript heavy implementations like modal window and autocomplete. Before we have decided on these, I'm reluctant to shove more code into the framework. >It would be very nice to use a TreeProvider instead of the swing TreeNode. Everyone can start using http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/ right away. I'm planning to move the 6.0 implementation to wicket-stuff (with minor changes), hopefully we'll get more feedback about its usefulness then. Best regards Sven Am 22.12.2011 00:14, schrieb Gabriel Landon: > I would love to have a refactor of the Treegrid (see > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1600 WICKET-1600 ) implemented > with the http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/ wicket-tree implementation > Sven Meier has done. > It would be very nice to use a TreeProvider instead of the swing TreeNode. > > > > -- > View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Roadmap-for-Wicket-6-0-tp4221946p4223618.html > Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
In reply to this post by Martin Grigorov-4
Hey
On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 15:50, Martin Grigorov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, > > Let discuss (again) what will be included in Wicket 6.0 so we can > schedule what and when will be implemented. > > Here is how I see it: > - before RC1 rename packages so there are no overlaps in different > jars (OSGi friendly) > Especially +1 on this one; once the rename had been done I can start providing patches to make wicket osgified by default. Kind regards, Andreas > > This is my list. > > I suggest to release M1 sooner to get more feedback earlier. > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com > |
|
In reply to this post by Sven Meier
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Sven Meier <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi Gabriel, > > there are several components which are in need of an overhaul, especially > Javascript heavy implementations like modal window and autocomplete. > Before we have decided on these, I'm reluctant to shove more code into the > framework. > > > >It would be very nice to use a TreeProvider instead of the swing TreeNode. > > Everyone can start using http://code.google.com/p/**wicket-tree/<http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/>right away. I'm planning to move the 6.0 implementation to wicket-stuff > (with minor changes), hopefully we'll get more feedback about its > usefulness then. > Sven, Thoughts about moving your tree to wicket-extensions rather than wicket-stuff? If it's supported by core committers and likely to make it into a future release of Wicket, I'd rather see it there than wicket-stuff. Wicket stuff is still widely regarded as the "wild west" of Wicket plugins and has a hard time getting wider adoption by many of the companies I visit (and rightly so in many regards, despite the heroic efforts of Mike and others). -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* |
|
Hi Jeremy,
> Thoughts about moving your tree to wicket-extensions yes, ultimately the new implementation from wicket-tree will be part of wicket-extensions. IMHO it's just a matter of timing, so this rework doesn't delay the next Wicket release and we get enough feedback on the new implementation (and a few additional changes I have in mind). This is why I'd thought of some sort of "incubation" in wicket-stuff. But if we get out Wicket 6 soon, I'd be glad to do resolve WICKET-4240 early in the Wicket 7 release cycle. Best regards Sven |
|
imho we should put it into wicket 6. wicket 7 will be far off...
-igor On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Sven Meier <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > >> Thoughts about moving your tree to wicket-extensions > > yes, ultimately the new implementation from wicket-tree will be part of > wicket-extensions. > > IMHO it's just a matter of timing, so this rework doesn't delay the next > Wicket release and we get enough feedback on the new implementation (and a > few additional changes I have in mind). > This is why I'd thought of some sort of "incubation" in wicket-stuff. > > But if we get out Wicket 6 soon, I'd be glad to do resolve WICKET-4240 early > in the Wicket 7 release cycle. > > Best regards > Sven |
|
If so I'll start working on WICKET-4240 next week.
Sven On 12/29/2011 06:49 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > imho we should put it into wicket 6. wicket 7 will be far off... > > -igor > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 9:21 AM, Sven Meier<[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi Jeremy, >> >> >>> Thoughts about moving your tree to wicket-extensions >> yes, ultimately the new implementation from wicket-tree will be part of >> wicket-extensions. >> >> IMHO it's just a matter of timing, so this rework doesn't delay the next >> Wicket release and we get enough feedback on the new implementation (and a >> few additional changes I have in mind). >> This is why I'd thought of some sort of "incubation" in wicket-stuff. >> >> But if we get out Wicket 6 soon, I'd be glad to do resolve WICKET-4240 early >> in the Wicket 7 release cycle. >> >> Best regards >> Sven |
|
In reply to this post by pieber
+1
On Dec 22, 2011, at 3:06 AM, Andreas Pieber wrote: > Hey > > On Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 15:50, Martin Grigorov <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Let discuss (again) what will be included in Wicket 6.0 so we can >> schedule what and when will be implemented. >> >> Here is how I see it: >> - before RC1 rename packages so there are no overlaps in different >> jars (OSGi friendly) >> > > Especially +1 on this one; once the rename had been done I can start > providing patches to make wicket osgified by default. > > Kind regards, > Andreas > > >> >> This is my list. >> >> I suggest to release M1 sooner to get more feedback earlier. >> >> >> -- >> Martin Grigorov >> jWeekend >> Training, Consulting, Development >> http://jWeekend.com >> |
|
In reply to this post by Martin Grigorov-4
don't kill me, any idea when Wicket 6.0 might be released? 3 months? 6 months? i need to upgrade from Wicket 1.3 but I'd like to skip to Wicket 6.0 if it fits our release cycle.
muchas gracias - rob |
|
Hi, and what about moving inmethod grid to the wicket-extensions? If
we would rewrite js parts from YUI to jQuery? 2012/1/6 robert.mcguinness <[hidden email]>: > don't kill me, any idea when Wicket 6.0 might be released? 3 months? 6 > months? i need to upgrade from Wicket 1.3 but I'd like to skip to Wicket > 6.0 if it fits our release cycle. > > muchas gracias - rob > > -- > View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Roadmap-for-Wicket-6-0-tp4221946p4267591.html > Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. |
|
In reply to this post by robmcguinness
Hi Rob,
The only major change that left is "component queueing". We need to decide how to proceed there. I prefer to release 6.0-M1 next few weeks and this way give the users a chance to try it and send us feedback sooner. If we decide that component queuing is stable then we will release M2 instead of RC1 and postpone 6.0 GA. But as I said we need more feedback from users. You can create some pet project just to try 6.0. On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 2:08 AM, robert.mcguinness <[hidden email]> wrote: > don't kill me, any idea when Wicket 6.0 might be released? 3 months? 6 > months? i need to upgrade from Wicket 1.3 but I'd like to skip to Wicket > 6.0 if it fits our release cycle. > > muchas gracias - rob > > -- > View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Roadmap-for-Wicket-6-0-tp4221946p4267591.html > Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com |
|
In reply to this post by danisevsky
Hi,
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:09 AM, danisevsky <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi, and what about moving inmethod grid to the wicket-extensions? If > we would rewrite js parts from YUI to jQuery? There is no active maintainer of this library even now in wicketstuff.org :-( Once I migrate my application in my daily job to 6.0 I will try to migrate inmethod-grid too because it is a heavy Ajax component and probably will uncover some bugs. Until then you can try to migrate its script.js from YUI to jQuery. This will help me a lot! > > > 2012/1/6 robert.mcguinness <[hidden email]>: >> don't kill me, any idea when Wicket 6.0 might be released? 3 months? 6 >> months? i need to upgrade from Wicket 1.3 but I'd like to skip to Wicket >> 6.0 if it fits our release cycle. >> >> muchas gracias - rob >> >> -- >> View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Roadmap-for-Wicket-6-0-tp4221946p4267591.html >> Sent from the Forum for Wicket Core developers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com |
|
In reply to this post by Martin Grigorov-4
I've just added the list of tasks at
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Wicket+6.0+Roadmap On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:25 PM, Martin Grigorov <[hidden email]> wrote: > I'm not sure it is false alarm. It seems Martijn has doubts as well. > I'm going to copy the list of tasks to a Wiki page to make it more explicit > > If anyone wants to add/remove something to the list please discuss in > dev@ and then after the agreement add/remove it from the Wiki page. > > On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Sven Meier <[hidden email]> wrote: >> Hi Martin, >> >> well, sorry for the false alarm then. >> >> Thanks for the clarification. >> >> Sven >> >> >> On 01/06/2012 10:22 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: >>> >>> Hi Sven, >>> >>> The road map is pretty much the list in my first mail + wicket-tree + >>> the tickets with "Fix version 6.0". >>> No one objected on any of the points so far. Which statements contradict ? >>> >>> I can say nothing about release dates because not everything depends on >>> me. >>> It depends how many of us will have time to work on 6.0, to fix >>> 1.4/1.5 and how many users will evaluate 6.0. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Sven Meier<[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I've read contradictory statements about a Wicket 6 roadmap. >>>> >>>> Do we have a consensus already? >>>> If yes, what was the decision? >>>> If not, how/when do we agree on a roadmap? >>>> Is this a private@ decision? >>>> >>>> Many thanks >>>> Sven >>> >>> >>> >> > > > > -- > Martin Grigorov > jWeekend > Training, Consulting, Development > http://jWeekend.com -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com |
| Powered by Nabble | Edit this page |
