> here is what I believe are the benefits of doing this:
>>
>> 1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto-
>> completion
>>
>> 2) Find Usages is more accurate (at least in IntelliJ, where I'm not
>> aware
>> of a find-usages that scop
mpagner wrote:
>> >
>> > yes thats the reason
>> >
>> > you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
>> > container itself is not generified
>> >
>> > i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like th
gt; >> Stefan Simik
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Johan Compagner wrote:
> >> >
> >> > yes thats the reason
> >> >
> >> > you are calling the method add with a generified
uot;)));
> >>
> >> Sure, it seems like a small difference and a saving of two
> >> characters, but
> >> here is what I believe are the benefits of doing this:
> >>
> >> 1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto-
> >> c
ch
>> ?
>> >>
>> >> I love your work and Wicket, so I do my best, to make it better ;)
>> >>
>> >> Stefan Simik
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Joh
;>
>>> >> please, and will be these classes later generified ?
>>> >> Or should I make a RFE, or can I help anyway-for example attach a
>>> >> patch
>>> ?
>>> >>
>>> >> I love your work and Wicket, so I do my b
sig to >
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
> we have a warning there.
> The pro
Component should be parameterized
>
> so that means we have to change our sig to >
> but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
>
> generics suck.
>
> -igor
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes then all th
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
I actually like having the generics better than not having it. In both
cases sometimes
s have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
> unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
> quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
>
> -igor
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
&
9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
>> unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
>> quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
>>
>> -igor
>
pe there
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to
be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On We
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
>> unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
>> quiet a lot
well, maybe you get used to warnings, i tend to do something about
them and clean up my code. i do not want to turn this warning off,
because as you said yourself it is a very useful warning, if i turn it
off i might as well not be using generics...
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Peter
that's exactly what I am saying...
It always pisses me off to see developers checking in code
that delivers like 50-100 warnings and they don't care.
warnings are a good thing.
not so sure about generics (just kidding :-)
Am 14.05.2008 um 22:41 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
well, may
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that
if we scope something as Class then even though
you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning
because we did not scope the class as Class>.
on the other hand if we do scope it
> the whole generics thing turned out to be
> quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
:-)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
since then the thread has evolved into whether or not we should use or >
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>
>> i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that
>> if
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> the whole generics thing turned out to be
>> quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
>
> :-)
Generics for models: great. Generics for components: awful. Too bad
that stu
wicket 1.6 = scala-based ? *lol*
Am 14.05.2008 um 23:28 schrieb Eelco Hillenius:
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
:-)
Generics for models: great. Ge
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
since then the thread has evolved into whether or not we should use or >
-igor
I don't understand how that changes any of my points. The first is
incorrect (from a generics point of view) since you're referencing an
unparameterized generic type.
So the
yeah, generics are pretty damn viral
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Eelco Hillenius
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> the whole generics thing turned out to be
>>> quiet a
t; extends Component> or >
>>
>> -igor
>
> I don't understand how that changes any of my points. The first is incorrect
> (from a generics point of view) since you're referencing an unparameterized
> generic type.
>
> So the second gives warnings onl
t;
> >>
> >> -igor
> >
> > I don't understand how that changes any of my points. The first is
> incorrect
> > (from a generics point of view) since you're referencing an
> unparameterized
> > generic type.
> >
> > So the second give
}
public static Test newInstance() {
return new Test();
}
}
As you can see, there is only one case when you get a compile error when
using the > generic type, and that is a case where
there is on the user side an incorrect generic type: Test. The
user
- unchecked conversion
}
public static Test newInstance() {
return new Test();
}
}
As you can see, there is only one case when you get a compile error
when
using the > generic type, and that is a case
where there
is on the user side an incorrect generic type: Test. The us
tatic Test newInstance() {
>return new Test();
>}
> }
>
> As you can see, there is only one case when you get a compile error when
> using the > generic type, and that is a case where there
> is on the user side an incorrect generic type: Test. The us
// error - generic types don't match,
> > can be "fixed" by line below
> >test1.doTest((Test) test2); // warning - unchecked
> conversion
> >test1.doTest(test3); // warning - unchecked conversion
> >}
> >
> >public static Tes
taken from SUN's generic tutorial:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5/pdf/generics-tutorial.pdf
end of page 8
snip :::
interface Collection
{
public boolean containsAll(Collection c);
public boolean addAll(Collection c);
}
We could have used generic methods here instead:
interface Colle
On 06/25/10 09:17, Alessandro Bottoni wrote:
Hi All,
I'm new to Wicket and I'm studying it using "Wicket in Action". As you
surely know, this book is based on Wicket 1.3, that does NOT use
generics, while the current version is 1.4 and DOES use them (as will do
the next on
uot;. As you
> surely know, this book is based on Wicket 1.3, that does NOT use
> generics, while the current version is 1.4 and DOES use them (as will do
> the next ones).
>
> Put aside this page:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/migrating-to-wicket-14.html#MigratingtoWick
Hi,
wouldn't it be nice if Panel had type param - Panel - which would be
used for:
IModel getDefaultModel()
T getDefaultModelObject()
Or why is it not so?
Thanks,
Ondra
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wic
See GenericPanel and few other components which implement IGenericComponent
We may make them all generic for Wicket 7 if JDK 7 is minimum and diamonds
can be used.
On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Ondrej Zizka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> wouldn't it be nice if Panel had type param - Panel - which would be
anxious for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java 5.
Why should we keep supporting 1.3
quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java 5.
Everybody is invited to vote! Please use
[ ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
What's the best practice when using generics with models that take some
object but return another type of object?
examples:
When you have a collection and need to convert it to a list for listview
purposes.
When you have some object and you need a wrapping model that creates some
s
Who has a real live example of this function:
http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/jsr166/dist/jsr166ydocs/jsr166y/forkjoin/ParallelArrayWithMapping.html#withMapping(jsr166y.forkjoin.Ops.BinaryOp,%20jsr166y.forkjoin.ParallelArrayWithMapping)
Its one of the most beautiful generic methods i have ever seen!
+1
Regards,
Edward Yakop
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ouch - this is a tough one, as I personally only write projects in Java 5+
but I often
work in Java 1.4 when I do consulting as most companies in telco and
finance still
use Java 1.4. But whatever you chose to do, you will cut off some so I say:
+1
--
Lars Borup Jensen
http://www.it-arbejde.d
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[X] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
[ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java 1.4
Thijs
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Jan Vissers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Azzeddine Daddah
www.hbiloo.com
Hi,
I was wondering to what extent it is possible to have generics added to
1.3 but have it compile to 1.4 if necessary? Isn't that a just a
question of not using other Java 1.5 constructs such as enums and new
JDK classes? Wouldn't that solve most people's problems that ne
+1
--
Wouter Huijnink
Func. Internet Integration
W http://www.func.nl
T +31 20 423
F +31 20 4223500
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Ari S.
- Original Message -
From: "Martijn Dashorst" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Wicket Development" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Wicket Users"
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 10:13 AM
Subject: [vote] Release 1.4 with only generics and stop support
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
hat a lot of
> folks are anxious for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
> to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
> that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
> wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade
Response inline
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Why should we keep supporting 1.3 and JDK 1.4?
>
Would 1.3 + Java 5 still be supported, or will support for 1.3 be dropped
totally? If so, it would then be nice that an upgrade from 1.3 with Java5
wi
models. Most users if not all wish us
to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java 5.
Everybody is invited to vote! Please use
[ ] +1
[x] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
[ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java 1.4
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[x] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
- Juha
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
This thread is for voting only. Use the [discuss] thread for voicing
your opinion or asking questions. This makes counting the votes much
easier.
The discussion on our development list makes it clear
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[X] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
[ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java 1.4
-Stephan
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
This thread is for voting only. Use the [discuss] thread for voicing
your opinion or asking questions. This makes counting the votes much
easier
if not all wish us
to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java 5.
Everybody is invited to vote! Please use
[ ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3
Hmm... bummer. :-)
How hard can it be to throw out all references to generics and insert
the casts where necessary? :-) But you're right... at least in eclipse
it complains if you put the source compliance level higher than the
class file compliance level...
Regards,
Sebastiaan
dont think you can compile java 5 source (with generics) to 1.4
you have to use something like retroweaver then
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 9:27 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering to what extent it is possible to have generics added to
&g
+1
--
// Et quid amabo nisi quod rerum enigma est?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Regards
Dipu
+1
+1
Regards,
Kaspar
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
of
folks are anxious for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java 5.
Everybody is
+1 Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
Vatroslav
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p16091936.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
+1
On 3/17/08, Jay Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
gt; wrote:
> Hmm... bummer. :-)
>
> How hard can it be to throw out all references to generics and insert
> the casts where necessary? :-) But you're right... at least in eclipse
> it complains if you put the source compliance level higher than the
> class file complian
008 at 10:50 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hmm... bummer. :-)
> >
> > How hard can it be to throw out all references to generics and insert
> > the casts where necessary? :-) But you're right... at least in eclipse
> > i
> >
> > please correct me if i am wrong.
> >
> > Maurice
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmm... bummer. :-)
> > >
> > > How hard can it
+1
Is also a good way to force clients to upgrade their Java version...!
On 3/17/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 3/17/08, Jay Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EM
+1
-Original Message-
From: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2008 4:13 AM
To: Wicket Development; Wicket Users
Subject: [vote] Release 1.4 with only generics and stop support for 1.3
This thread is for voting only. Use the [discuss] thread for voicing
+1
ryan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
+1
Maurice
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> ryan
>
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
+1
Maarten
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:42 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> Maurice
>
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1
> >
> > ryan
> >
> >
> >
> > -
> > T
[X] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
Regards,
Sebastiaan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
+1 Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 7:08 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> +1
>
> On 3/17/08, Jay Hogan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > +1
>
>
> >
>
> --
[ ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
[ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java 1.4
+1
regards, --- jan.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL
+1
/Per
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p16092891.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To
for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
> to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
> that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
> wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java 5.
>
> Ever
+1
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p16095578.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To
lot of
> folks are anxious for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
> to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
> that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
> wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java
+1
> > [ ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
> > [ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java 1.4
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
> to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
> that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
> wishes updates will have to migrate to 1.4, and upgrade to Java 5.
>
> Ever
+1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This thread is for voting only. Use the [discuss] thread for voicing
> your opinion or asking questions. This makes counting the votes much
>
[X] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p16096362.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
-1
lonely, Juan
+1
--
Fabrizio Giudici, Ph.D. - Java Architect, Project Manager
Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere."
weblogs.java.net/blog/fabriziogiudici - www.tidalwave.it/blog
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - mobile: +39 348.150.6941
-
[ ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p16097038.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
+1
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM, djo.mos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> [ ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p1609
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> Everybody is invited to vote! Please use
[ X ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
[ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java
+1
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t makes it clear that a lot of
> folks are anxious for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
> to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
> that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
> wishes updates will have to migr
[X] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
Martin
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Martijn Dashorst schrieb:
Everybody is invited to vote! Please use
[ ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
[ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java 1.4
Let your voices be heard!
+1
-
To
+1
Stefan Jozsa
-
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.
lopment list makes it clear that a lot of
> folks are anxious for generified models. Most users if not all wish us
> to release a quick release which is 1.3 + generics. The consequence is
> that the core team will stop to support 1.3, and that everybody that
> wishes updates will have
[ X ] +1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3
[ ] -1, I need a supported version running on Java 1.4
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p16100542.html
Sent from the Wicket - User
+1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3On 18/03/2008, at 3:35 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:+1, Wicket 1.4 is 1.3 + generics, drop support for 1.3On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:This thread is for voting only. Use the [discuss] thre
+1
(poor Juan - will he demand a recount?)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-vote--Release-1.4-with-only-generics-and-stop-support-for-1.3-tp16090054p16105701.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Just curious what experiences people had with serialization and
generics, never having played there myself...
On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
This thread is the accompanying discussion thread for the ongoing vote
on the same subject. Please use this discussion thread for
what do those 2 have to do with each other?
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 11:31 PM, Alex Jacoby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just curious what experiences people had with serialization and
> generics, never having played there myself...
>
> On Mar 17, 2008, at 4:13 AM, Mart
301 - 400 of 678 matches
Mail list logo
