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.
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.
Argh, that is horrible. :(
2009/11/17 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
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
jer...@wickettraining.com wrote:
Because we'll get
im +1, unless Jeremy can tell why he believes it will hit a anti patter..
2009/11/16 Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com
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
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
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 Thomerson
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
jer...@wickettraining.com wrote:
Because we'll get questions to the list like:
How can I create my own component since I have to instantiate
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 in
