'IModel<?> getModel()' instead of 'Object getModel()', and 'IModel<T> getModel()' instead of 'T getModel()', sorry.
And sorry for flooding the mailing list, this is the last one, I promise :) On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: > What if Component was not generified, and had an 'Object getModel()' method > instead of 'Object getDefaultModel()', and the components that do benefit > from generics, simply override the method to return 'T' (then the component > class would have a <T> type parameter)? The compiler accepts this just fine. > > Tetsuo > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:48 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I've just read the explanation in a Tim's blog post comment. Oh, well, >> generics definitely isn't easy to grasp... >> >> I myself have observed that my (wicket) code is so much readable without >> most generics declarations. Even when using components that do have models >> (Textfield, for example) I didn't gain anything for adding the angle >> brackets, since the models in general use reflection (PropertyModel, >> CompoundPropertyModel, etc.), and don't make any use of the build-time >> validation at all. >> >> sigh... >> >> Tetsuo >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM, tetsuo <ronald.tet...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I understand the getModelObject() thing, but I not about the >>> getDefaultModel(). Why is that? >>> >>> I've found an e-mail ( >>> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/wicket-dev/200806.mbox/%3c23eb48360806190903y27f3baeaua2db57e392497...@mail.gmail.com%3e) >>> that states that it may be removed in 1.5. >>> >>> Why rename getModel to getDefaultModel just to take it out later? >>> >>> Not a critic, just trying to understand. >>> >>> Tetsuo >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Jeremy Thomerson < >>> jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: >>> >>>> A good overall read, but he also seemed to miss the reason we have >>>> getModel**Object**. He doesn't think that's necessary, but misses >>>> that there is also getModel (without object) and the word does clarify >>>> the difference. >>>> >>>> Anyway, a good read on overall API design, though. I'd recommend it >>>> to others with the caveat that I also disagree with his last part >>>> about the rename. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jeremy Thomerson >>>> http://www.wickettraining.com >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Martijn >>>> Dashorst<martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > >>>> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/timboudreau/archive/2009/07/api_design_vs_a_1.html >>>> > >>>> > I guess he doesn't get why we did the rename. This reminds me that we >>>> > *really* should improve our release docs before we finalize 1.4!!! >>>> > >>>> > Martijn >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: >>>> http://wicketinaction.com >>>> > Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released >>>> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >> >
