Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

I hate repeating myself and being the compiler's teacher. IMHO the generics that are implemented in Java resulted in terrible code where you have to repeat yourself over and over and over. Are you sure your text field holds a String and your model returns a String? TextField field = new TextField(

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst < martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > i.e. ModelType.of() > > I am +1 for adding these methods. > I'm +1 for the model-type methods, although there are so many models that are not final classes that it really won't save tons of code. Mainly

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

im +1, unless Jeremy can tell why he believes it will hit a anti patter.. 2009/11/16 Jeremy Thomerson > On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst < > martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > i.e. ModelType.of() > > > > I am +1 for adding these methods. > > > > I'm +1 for the model-t

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

I know it is an minor thing, but the creation act that the new keyword exposes, the 'of' method don't has. IMO the simple fact of an method name does not contain an verb is an anti-pattern. On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM, nino martinez wael < nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > im +1, unless

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

Because we'll get questions to the list like: How can I create my own component since I have to instantiate them using Label.of("foo", PropertyModel.of(bar, "foo"))? How can I override that? Do I have to override the static method "of"? Sadly, I think that's what it will cause. -- Jeremy Thome

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

not to mention that some components have 6 constructors, and that means having 6 of methods :| -igor On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote: > Because we'll get questions to the list like: > > How can I create my own component since I have to instantiate them using > Label.of("f

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

Argh, that is horrible. :( 2009/11/17 Igor Vaynberg > not to mention that some components have 6 constructors, and that > means having 6 of methods :| > > -igor > > On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Jeremy Thomerson > wrote: > > Because we'll get questions to the list like: > > > > How can I cr

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

oo, > "property")); > > WDYT? > > Martijn > -- > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.0 > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Cutting-down-on-the-repetitive-type-identifiers-for-generics-tp26361334p26623904.html Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

hinking > > they can't use the 'new' keyword. > > > > TextField field = TextField.of("someId", PropertyModel.of(foo, > > "property")); > > > > WDYT? > > > > Martijn > > -- > > Become a Wicket expert, learn fro

Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics

ng >> > they can't use the 'new' keyword. >> > >> > TextField field = TextField.of("someId", PropertyModel.of(foo, >> > "property")); >> > >> > WDYT? >> > >> > Martijn >> > -- >> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> > Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.0 >> > >> > >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://old.nabble.com/Cutting-down-on-the-repetitive-type-identifiers-for-generics-tp26361334p26623904.html >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >