Hi, On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Michael Mosmann <mich...@mosmann.de> wrote: > 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:)
Which methods in Wicket APIs will use IReadableModel/IWriteableModel instead of IModel ? > > 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. -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com
