On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:09 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> You shouldn't muddy up your "domain" with view-specific logic (the > IModel interface). In my example I just used IModel<T> instead of Property<T> because everybody knows IModel. Have a look at https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/ It's certainly *not* view-specific logic. It's a very simple idea, and way more elegant than ugly setters and getters. But I will have a look at the proxy approach as well. regards Maarten > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:42 AM, Maarten Bosteels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Wayne Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Francisco and I here where discussing whether we could figure a way of > >> having some form of static/compile time checking on our > >> (Compound)PropertyModels, as I'm a bit concerned long term about some > nasty > >> runtime bugs that might slip through the testing coverage. Francisco > found > >> this thread - I'm wondering what the status is? I had a look at: > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1327 > >> > >> and there doesn't look like any activity since Feb. Anyone been using > this > >> or come up with a different solution? > >> > >> Ideally I think it would be just great if we had an eclipse plugin that > >> could just check for this (a bit like checkstyle or something) but a > runtime > >> solution as proposed above seems really smart as well. However I'd > rather > >> keep is 100% java (ie not cglib) if possible. > > > > Hello, > > > > If you want something 100% java you could copde your domain models like > this: > > > > public class Customer implements Serializable { > > public final IModel<String> firstName = new Model<String>(); > > public final IModel<String> lastName = new Model<String>(); > > } > > > > and use it like this: > > > > form.add(new TextField<String>("firstName", customer.firstName)); > > form.add(new TextField<String>("lastName", customer.lastName)); > > > > => no need to generate ugly getters/setters for all your properties > > => pure java > > => refactoring-safe > > => navigation + code-completion from IDE > > => you can still override setObject() and/or setObject() when needed > > > > In this example I have used wicket's IModel and Model but you could > > also use Property<String> from https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/ > > which has a lot of other benefits (a pity that the project is stalled a > bit). > > > > Note that I haven't used this extensively but I sure do want to test > > it out in the near future.. > > > > One problem I see with this approach is when you need null-checking > > for nested properties: > > eg: new TextField<String>("city", customer.address.getObject().city ); > > > > Let me know what you think about it. > > > > Maarten > > > > > >> Thanks for any update if anyone knows anything! > >> Wayne > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Johan Compagner wrote: > >>> > >>> no i really dont like that > >>> then everywhere there code they need to do that, that is not an option. > >>> and they have to program themselfs agains the proxy api. I dont want > that > >>> developers also have the learn/do that > >>> This is something commons-proxy needs to do > >>> > >>> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM, James Carman < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Couldn't you also do: > >>>> > >>>> ProxyFactory pf = ...; > >>>> new SharedPropertyModel<Customer>(pf, customer); > >>>> > >>>> So, the client tells you what proxy factory implementation to use. > >>>> > >>>> On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > I see the JIRA, I'll go ahead and start the discussion on the dev > list. > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > > On 3/8/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > for wicket this is a feature it really should have > >>>> > > > now it defeats the purpose i have to make a decission in > wicket > >>>> which > >>>> > > > factory i use > >>>> > > > Then i can just as well directly compile against cglib. > >>>> > > > I cant make the api that way that the developer has to give > that > >>>> factory to > >>>> > > > use. That would be completely horrible, > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > You could always implement your own brand of discovery for your > >>>> > > project (perhaps by using the service discovery feature built > into > >>>> the > >>>> > > jdk). > >>>> > > > >>>> > > I like the idea of splitting it (and doing it the slf4j way > rather > >>>> > > than the JCL way). I have actually suggested that we start an > >>>> > > exploratory branch of JCL to make it work more like slf4j (we've > >>>> been > >>>> > > talking about this since 2005). Anyway, if you file a JIRA > issue, > >>>> > > I'll make sure we have a discussion with the other devs. For > your > >>>> > > immediate purposes, commons-discovery is available also. > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/CompoundModel-based-on-proxies-tp15317807p20222077.html > >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
