I have no specific problem, more a general... I think most time a model access uses only getObject(). Throwing exceptions on setObject in AbstractReadOnlyModel could be avoided with the right interface is there. An in between of my last refactoring i could see that (to this point) nothing violated the intention. The right interface would prove this...
I would like to see in method signatures or c-tor params that a component does not change a model value. I hope i could explain my intention good enough:) Mm:) Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> schrieb: >what problem are you trying to solve? > >-igor > >On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Michael Mosmann <mich...@mosmann.de> >wrote: >> Hi, >> >> .. yesterday I did some refactoring which introduced a IReadOnlyModel >> interface. I stopped this so far because of these many default casts >to >> IModel. I will try it again with the other way around >(IWriteableModel). So >> far I could see how things become more clear if the right interface >is used. >> So here comes some questions: >> >> - Is somebody interested in this change (beside me)? >> - Is there a chance that we missing something so wicket could break? >> - Is there a better name (sure there is)? >> >> Thanks >> Michael >> -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
