+1 ! On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 13:30, James Carman <[email protected]>wrote:
> I've tried pushing through the runtime implementation resolution > (similar to slf4j), but nobody seems keen on it. At least, they > didn't answer my emails. So, perhaps I'll just refactor it myself and > put it out there and see what happens? > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Johan Compagner<[email protected]> > wrote: > > this we already kind of have. > > > > But it uses currently proxies. And is build on commons proxy that wants > us > > to hard code the proxie implementation > > that you should use, thats in my eyes a wrong implementations, the whole > > point of a wrapping class around a proxy > > is that i dont want to choose at compile time which one i want! > > > > But our property model can do what you are describing just fine. > > > > johan > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 10:09, Martijn Dashorst > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > >> We've been discussing a typesafe property model before, and I'd like > >> to see where the current crop of such APIs and suggestions is. With > >> Wicket 1.4 imminent, and our migration to Java 5 this should be much > >> more easy to implement than before. > >> > >> One such library is > >> http://code.google.com/p/logicalpractice-collections/ where they make > >> selectors available on standard collections. > >> > >> Using their library one can write the following: > >> > >> smiths = select(from(people).getLastName(), > equalToIgnoringCase("smith")); > >> > >> > >> Putting my Wicket head on, I think something like: > >> > >> bind(new Label("foo")).to(person).getLastName()); > >> > >> or > >> > >> add(new Label("foo").bind(person).getLastName()); > >> > >> Would be nice. > >> > >> Not sure how this jives with our desire to remove the default model > >> slot. I think having a binding API might nicely coincide with removing > >> a default slot. The details of this are left as an exercise to the > >> reader ;-) > >> > >> Martijn > >> > > >
