On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Uwe Schäfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maurice Marrink schrieb:
>
>>> feel free, to convert me ;)
>>
>> I am not good at converting people, either you see the light or you don't
>> :P
>
> *g*
>
>> One of the strong points of swarm (imo ;)) is the ease with which
Eelco,
can you try it again with latest trunk?
Cheers,
Gerolf
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 6:54 AM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Gerolf Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > i have the fix for that in my local checkout and
> > will commit it sometim
I would love too. But what confuses me is the aim of wicketstuff projects.
Some of them seem to follow wicket release cycle, some have their own cycle,
and always
build against wicket-trunk.
It would be helpful if wicketstuff projects have a clearer release cycle
plan.
Also some projects use rele
Confirmed :)
It works with 1.3-SNAPSHOT
-- Edvin
Igor Vaynberg skrev:
already fixed in trunk afair
-igor
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Edvin Syse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I think this is my third bug found in the enclosure system :)
Simple quickstart:
HomePage.java:
public cla
why should all wicket-stuff projects follow the same release schedule?
all these projects are owned by different people, their only thing in
common being the svn repository.
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:58 AM, gumnaam23 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would love too. But what confuses me is
at this point because of the convenience and flexibility it offers.
Guice
looks nice, but the tool support isn't there yet.
That's why I use guice. Because you don't even need tools :-)
Am 21.05.2008 um 03:32 schrieb Nick Heudecker:
I have to agree with James. I wouldn't build an applicat
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> why should all wicket-stuff projects follow the same release schedule?
Because it will bring balance to the force?
Seriously, having such a huge component library available is good, but
when they are not maintained and n
always strange that that works
If you just look at it then it seems to be the same thing :)
i already did those changes for IVisitor, from
public final Object visitChildren(final Class clazz,
final IVisitor> visitor)
to this i believe.
public final > Object visitChildren(final Class
clazz,
final
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> always strange that that works
> If you just look at it then it seems to be the same thing :)
>
tbh, i would still like to get an explanation _why_ it works with
> and not directly with >.
Gerolf
you can have in markup
and new AjaxLink("linkButton") {...} in java code.
Gerolf
On Tue, May 20, 2008 at 2:35 AM, mnwicket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That is an option, but would rather use;
>
>
>
> I have styles around my input buttons that I want to reuse. I'm sure I can
> create my o
Am I the only one who gets confused with all those <>? Can't we just
drop the component generification? I see a lot of problems and type
duplication for little gain. I think having IModel generified is a
good thing because it allows you to specify types on your component
constructors.
Martijn
On
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Am I the only one who gets confused with all those <>? Can't we just
> drop the component generification? I see a lot of problems and type
> duplication for little gain. I think having IModel generified is a
> good thing because it allows you to specif
i remove the code "cursor.getId()" from Localizer.getCacheKey and deploy it
to the server.
No more memory leak detected. the server runs well for several days.
Great thanks to Johan.
2008/5/15 Quan Zhou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Maybe you're right.
> Yesterday I deployed the application in a high lo
Am I the only one who gets confused with all those <>?
you are not!
Can't we just
drop the component generification? I see a lot of problems and type
duplication for little gain. I think having IModel generified is a
good thing because it allows you to specify types on your component
constru
I suspect the multiple wildcards (?) in one type expression causing
all that trouble.
probably an issue of the compiler and not of the language spec.
public class Test
{
public static void main(String[] args)
{
bad(Derived.class); // ok
bad(Base.class); // compile error
good(De
Also if you use CompoundPropertyModels (widely used) then generics are
completely not used anymore at all..
Speaking for me, I never use expression based property models in any
mid- to large-sized project to have complete(!) refactoring support in
my IDE.
String expression are a lot less v
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if we drop that then we can pretty much drop also model
Not sure. I think having Component(String id, IModel model) is a
good thing. However, generifying Component further to get rid of the
cast when doing getModelObjec
if we drop that then we can pretty much drop also model
Because the model goes into the Component and gone is the generified model.
Also if you use CompoundPropertyModels (widely used) then generics are
completely not used anymore at all..
So what do we gain then?
For example the DropDownChoice t
Maybe this can help a little:
http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6384510
(verified with java 1.5 on mac os x leopard)
Am 21.05.2008 um 11:13 schrieb Martijn Dashorst:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
if we drop that then we can pret
and both compilers Eclipse and Javac both report the problem?
What happens if if we say then raw types are not allowed anymore
At least that is what sun says and also wants..
So i get > that that gives a compile error if you
give a Component that is of raw type
But why is it that if you do xxx
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
That is not my problem. The problem is that Component is confusing
as hell and opens up the box of pandorra wrt generics. I *like*
IModel but I fail to see how setResponsePage(>>) is necessary for this. The only reason iirc to generify
component is to remove the casts for
That is not my problem. The problem is that Component is confusing
as hell and opens up the box of pandorra wrt generics. I *like*
IModel but I fail to see how setResponsePage(>>) is necessary for this. The only reason iirc to generify
component is to remove the casts for these two methods:
IModel
*revive zombie*
has any simple solution been found? I am dealing with the same issue.
RobinShine wrote:
>
> Hi Matt,
>
> Thanks for your quick answer. Although in this simple case, it is enough
> to only update the count label. However in my application, it is
> necessary to update the wh
Peter Ertl schrieb:
at this point because of the convenience and flexibility it offers.
Guice
looks nice, but the tool support isn't there yet.
That's why I use guice. Because you don't even need tools :-)
+1 for guice:
very easy, powerful, small, lightweight, blazing fast, no xml/all jav
Worked great. What I did:
1) Created the FileResource class:
public class FileResource extends WebResource {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
private File file;
public FileResource(File file) {
this.file = file;
}
@Override
public IReso
as i said. any generified use of CompoundPropertyModel is gone
Also if you make getModel() return a normal IModel that is of raw type i
think you get warnings everywhere again...
and i think only suppresswarnings will help those
Because if yo do
IModel stringModel = (IModel)component.getModel();
Hi,
IModel getModel()
Object getModelObject()
I can live with having these methods not being generified.
for my own cases, generics have been also been more pain- than helpful with
Wicket.
I don't see any _real_ advantage in having all components needing a type just
for the sake of typing
i resolved that problem...i put a label instead of MultiLineLabel...thanks.
Now i want optimize the opening of the email.
MailAccount.java
package ajaxubimail.index;
import java.io.IOException;
import java.util.Arrays;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Properties;
import javax.mail.Addre
Hi,
i'm trying to implement an AutoCompleteTextField that selects from a List of POJOs. In my example i want to select an
Artist from a Database. (see code at end of the mail)
I ran into two problems there...
1.) generic implementation
all classes are generic and of type "Artist", but AutoCom
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
why should all wicket-stuff projects follow the same release schedule?
all these projects are owned by different people, their only thing in
common being the svn repository.
Technically you are right. But I think there is more to it, than just
only technique.
More than
What I'm proposing would not require the same "first name" model on both
validators. I might not have been clear enough in my explanation...
StringValidator.minimum='${label}' with value '${input}' is shorter than
the minimum of ${minimum} characters.
CustomStringValidator.minimum='${label}' with
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
That is not my problem. The problem is that Component is confusing
as hell and opens up the box of pandorra wrt generics. I *like*
IModel but I fail to see how setResponsePage(>>) is necessary for this. The only reason iirc to generify
component is to remove the casts for
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generics are hard, especially for library/framework designers: it's hard to
> get them exactly right, especially with wildcards in complex cases. But just
> because they are not currently exactly right yet in M1 seems
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generics are hard, especially for library/framework designers: it's hard to
get them exactly right, especially with wildcards in complex cases. But just
because they are not currently exactly r
Having moved my wicket project to the 1.4 trunk, I have to say that I like
generics quite a bit. Yes, there is a bit of a learning curve with them,
but in general I like not having to cast my getModelObject() calls. It is
especially nice inside of DataView and DropDownChoice. Learning curve
pro
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
>> not. IModel itself is rather contained.
> Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
> @SuppressWarnings all over the
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:44 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
> > not. IModel itself is rather contained.
>
> Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
> @SuppressWarning
Why would you add a large chunk of code to your project if you're not sure
you're going to need it? My advice: leave Spring out until it's actually
solving a concrete problem for you.
Thomas
PS: but then again I never understood what Spring was for anyway ;-)
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Bru
I must say if this works, it has my +1000 support.
Martijn
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Joni Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:44 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
>> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> > Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care o
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
not. IModel itself is rather contained.
Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
@SuppressWarn
Joni Freeman wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:44 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
not. IModel itself is rather contained.
Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
@SuppressW
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Mäder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would you add a large chunk of code to your project if you're not sure
> you're going to need it? My advice: leave Spring out until it's actually
> solving a concrete problem for you.
Spring (or another dependency injec
does this mean it should work now?
strangely, things work fine for me in eclipse, but from the command
line, I still get:
$ mvn clean install:
/Users/ryan/Documents/workspace/dexter/website/src/java/dexter/website/
wicket/page/DownloadingPage.java:[18,97] inconvertible types
found :
jav
i did it...was simple!I had to declare Folder folder field in ListView
Constructor...
now the systems opens the mails, but the problem is it not opens non-HTML
mails...How can i do the trick?
Davidoff wrote:
>
> i resolved that problem...i put a label instead of
> MultiLineLabel...thanks.
> Now
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 15:22 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Does this always work nicely though, because you need to do a capture
> which means that the compiler must be able to infer the type... I've had
> problems before in these kind of situations that for me it seems
> obvious, but the
Any news on the 1.3.4 release date yet?
We are waiting on a couple of fixes that are already committed, but we don't
want to go back to using a SNAPSHOT if the 1.3.4 release is on the horizon.
Cheers,
Oli
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/1.3.4-Release-tp16810205p1736424
How does one validate two dates with one another on the same form? As seen
in the snippets below, I've added the validators in the onSubmit() of the form
which actually works, though not on the first time the form is submitted only on
subsequent submittals. Could someone throw me a bone on how
Use a custom validator?
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Tim Sarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does one validate two dates with one another on the same form? As seen
> in the snippets below, I've added the validators in the onSubmit() of the form
> which actually works, though not on the f
Ryan,
this is already fixed in trunk and will be included in the rebuilt M2
release.
Gerolf
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> does this mean it should work now?
>
> strangely, things work fine for me in eclipse, but from the command line, I
> still get
Hi,
I want to create a form in a Wicket Panel that POSTs its data to an external
site.
Simple coding it in the HTML does not work since the target URL and some
hidden values will be insterted dynamically.
Is there something similar to an ExternalLink only form Forms?
Or do I have to add the HTML
The changes to BookmarkablePageLink are working, but not for
RestartResponseAtInterceptPageException?
It looks like BookmarkablePageLink is:
new BookmarkablePageLink(final String id, final Class pageClass)
while
new RestartResponseAtInterceptPageException(
final Class< ? ext
yes i also thought about some time ago.
But this is not really better... Now without you doing a cast in the code
(so that you know what you are doing)
you suddenly have a class cast exception at some point later on
class MyComp extends Component {
public MyComp() {
IModel mode
Just to make shure,
do you still see a bug?
Or are things fine now?
mf
2008/5/20 Java Programmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Found bug in that version comma after 'marker': overlayID, in
> addGOverlayListener click event, probably repaired in earlier
> versions, sorry for troubling you :(.
>
> Best
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes i also thought about some time ago.
But this is not really better... Now without you doing a cast in the code
(so that you know what you are doing)
you suddenly have a class cast exception at some point later on
class MyComp extends Component {
public MyComp()
Typesafety from getObject() was never the ultimate goal. API clarity
was, and JavaDoc is not API clarity.
Martijn
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johan Compagner wrote:
>>
>> yes i also thought about some time ago.
>>
>> But this is not really bett
I think that is only part of the problem in this instance. The other
part of the problem is that Base.class presents only runtime
information. There is no way to invoke Base.class to get
Class> in a manner similar to how you can invoke a generic
method. The type represented in the <> returned by a
Generics is type safety
Not API clarity that was only the case in a few things.
I am against this abuse big time -1000 from me
Then no generics
johan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Typesafety from getObject() was never the ultimate goal. API cla
I think we are ready to release 1.3.4. Let me ping the others if it
can be this weekend (I don't have time before)
Frank
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:57 PM, OliZilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any news on the 1.3.4 release date yet?
> We are waiting on a couple of fixes that are already committe
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generics is type safety
I didn't say generics isn't type safety. But APPLYING generics for the
Wicket framework API *ISN'T* its primary goal. API clarity *IS*. Less
questions on the mailing list regarding DDC, ListView,
Bruce McGuire-2 wrote:
>
> There are aspects (no pun intended) of Spring that we like, but are unsure
> if the benefits (AOP, IOC) are worth the added effort.
>
If you use the @SpringBean annotation in your Wicket classes there's not
really any added effort at all. Everytime I add one of thes
You could use a WebMarkupContainer and attribute modifiers. It may not be
the most elegant, but WMC works for decorating any kind of HTML tag in the
markup...
Markup:
...
Code:
WebMarkupContainer form = new WebMarkupContainer("externalForm");
form.add(new AttributeModifier("act
Here is another jumping-off point, that uses JPA along with @SpringBean
annotations.
http://wicket-learning-application.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/
jwcarman wrote:
>
> If you want a "jumping off point", you can start with my example
> project I used for a talk I gave on Wicket last night:
>
> ht
Thanks, yes, I'd been looking at RepeatingView and hadn't noticed
ListView, which was what I really needed, as I needed to have embedded
components, which RV doesn't do but LV does...
That and:
listItem.setMarkupId(PREFIX + index);
listItem.setOutputMarkupId(true);
pretty much sorted it...
Hi -
Is there an easy way to strip the wicket tags from the produced markup
while keeping the application in development mode?
I'm finding the development of a Facebook FBML app pretty painful, as
are ignored by Facebook and result in error messages. With
deployment configuration I get arou
in MyApplication.init():
getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
Gerolf
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Lauri Lehtinen <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Is there an easy way to strip the wicket tags from the produced markup
> while keeping the application in development mode?
>
>
Lauri Lehtinen schrieb:
Is there an easy way to strip the wicket tags from the produced markup
while keeping the application in development mode?
take a look at
http://wicket.apache.org/docs/wicket-1.3.2/wicket/apidocs/org/apache/wicket/settings/Settings.html#setStripWicketTags(boolean)
cu uw
In Application.init add getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
-Original Message-
From: Lauri Lehtinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:09 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: How to strip wicket tags from markup in development mode?
Hi -
Is there an e
Hi!
Does the Wicket localizer support overriding localization for each
component? This is what I have:
add(new DropDownChoice(TYPE_PICKER, typeChoices));
add(new DropDownChoice(DATE_PICKER, dateChoices));
I would like to localize the null choice differently. Now it reads
"Choose one" for both dr
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Daniel Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i'm trying to implement an AutoCompleteTextField that selects from a List of
> POJOs. In my example i want to select an Artist from a Database. (see code
> at end of the mail)
>
> I ran into two problems there...
>
Hummm... this is an interesting question. Currently in have solved it like
this.
Add a javacript to the page that changes the forms target.
function makeCallBack( URL ){
document.forms[ "orderForm" ].action = URL;
document.forms[ "orderForm" ].submit();
}
In my wicket page
target.app
Hi!
In my website I have an textField for email and a password field for the
password.
The problem is that I need to print "Email here" , "Password here" in the
field so that the user can type in the fields. There are no room for labels.
I need some way of changing the password field to textfiel
Hi,
This is sort of 2nd attempt to get some answers about SSL switching.
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/how-to-switch-to-ssl-mode.html is the page I
am referring to.
The solution mentioned for wicket 1.3.x does not seem to work for form
submission. What is happening is the incoming URL has the
Perhaps you can extend Form and do
onComponentTag(final ComponentTag tag) {
super.onComponentTag(tag);
tag.put("method","post");
tag.put("action",MyApplication.get().getExternalUrl());
}
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Mathias P.W Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hummm... this is an inter
Just an off-the-cuff guess, but have you tried adding both a textfield and a
password field, and then when the textfield (with the hint) is in focus,
hiding that and showing / focusing on the password field?
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Math
well, thats what we get for having virtually no entry barrier. for me
branching the entire repo with every major release of wicket is much
easier because i can do it with one command. if each project has their
own tree i am not going to do it. that means when there is an api
change in wicket all pr
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, thats what we get for having virtually no entry barrier. for me
> branching the entire repo with every major release of wicket is much
> easier because i can do it with one command. if each project has their
> own tre
and what happens when someone wants ${label} at row {0} column {1} is
required? do we start passing in arrays, lists, or maps for imodels to
validators?
why not just do
textfield.setlabel(new model("first name at row "+row));
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTEC
see IFormValidator and its implementations
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Tim Sarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does one validate two dates with one another on the same form? As seen
> in the snippets below, I've added the validators in the onSubmit() of the form
> which actually w
Hello,
I think to solve the problem with wicket, you have to do some ajax stuff in
wicket.
You can have wicket to render the normal password field and code a
javascript
that swaps the two different fields "onFocus" and/or "onBlur" on the client
side.
Mathias P.W Nilsson wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>
In the properties file for your page do:
component1Id.nullValid=Choose type
component2Id.nullValid=Choose date
Instead of just the id you can also include the (partial) path,
working your way to the top from the component you are trying to use.
Maurice
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Martin Mak
If I read a password field asking me to type my password, where plain text
already exists, I would have 2nd thoughts on entering it.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Just an off-the-cuff guess, but have you tried adding both a textfield and
> a
> pass
ok so we pretty much have some core people wanting to back out the
generics support.
shall we start a vote? johan, gerolf and i have spent a ridiculous
amount of time trying to generify the codebase and remove all the
shitty warnings. if there is even a slight chance of this getting
backed out i d
well, the problem is that most trunks depend on wicket snapshots
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> well, thats what we get for having virtually no entry barrier. for me
>>
flattery will get you everywhere
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the quick release cycles that Wicket goes through, that just
> seems weird to me. They should pick a version and go with it. The
> Wicket team is very good about keeping thing
so that pretty much means going forward with 1.3?
drop 1.4 completely and focus on 1.5 (which is the current trunk) ?
Because if we drop generics from Component and IModel we dont have to have a
1.4
why should we do that?
johan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
yep, pretty much. we will have to reapply the api-breaking fixes we
put into 1.4 to 1.3/new 1.4/whatever
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so that pretty much means going forward with 1.3?
> drop 1.4 completely and focus on 1.5 (which is the curr
I filed a bug report: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1572
This bug is so unfathomable, there is got to be some psychic being involve.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:32 AM, TonyVegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> *revive zombie*
>
> has any simple solution been found? I am dealing with
Before we do a vote I want to make sure what our alternatives are.
I still like Joni's alternative. I don't think they are an
abomination, because the /potential/ class cast exception you get is
the same as with current 1.3. But the benefit of documenting the model
parameters in DDC, LV, etc. is H
With the quick release cycles that Wicket goes through, that just
seems weird to me. They should pick a version and go with it. The
Wicket team is very good about keeping things fresh. I have been very
surprised at how many releases have gone out in my brief experience
with Wicket.
On Wed, May
How about generifying the DDC constructor and not the class itself?
public DropDownChoice(String id, IModel> choices,
IModel selectedValue);
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before we do a vote I want to make sure what our alternatives are.
>
> I s
no i am really against that falls IModel getModel() method
that really abuses everything that generics stands for. For such a basic
thing.
this is really bad programming
If we drop it we also pretty much drop it from IModel or have warnings in
the user code.
But then drop it completely is better
Hello,
I am using AutoCompleteBehavior from wicket extensions 1.3.0 and it works
like a charm. But after upgrading to 1.3.3, I am getting a script error on
my IE. Is there any known remedy ?
Appreciate your thoughts.
Regards,
Andy
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/AutoComp
yeah we need to do that then. But after that you loose the generification
completely
So the constructors are the "Documented" nothing more.
But getModel will have a warning then and getModelObject() always will
return an object.
johan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:05 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROT
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Before we do a vote I want to make sure what our alternatives are.
>
> I still like Joni's alternative. I don't think they are an
> abomination, because the /potential/ class cast exception you get is
> the same as with current 1.3. But the benefit of
class Component {
private IModel model;
public IModel getModel() {
return (IModel) model;
}
}
I like this. Even with the possible class cast exception. Because
without generics, it doesn't leave you no other option than to cast it
to your model, which isn't
Well, maybe it really is a hack that's too ugly. We might have two methods,
default getModel() that doesn't cast it and alternative convenience
one that does.
-Matej
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> class Component {
> private IModel model;
>
>
i really dont get it how people can like this..
really
if i would have a frame work that abuses it like that
For example if the collections framework of java would do things like that?
What would you all think??
This is really horrible abuse, enormous hack.
If i would encounter something like
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok so we pretty much have some core people wanting to back out the
> generics support.
I hate to say it, and I kept myself on the background because I don't
want to be a pita, but I still feel the same as I did last year:
Thanks to all who responded. The consensus seems to support the idea of
adding Spring to the app. Here we go!
I really appreciate the information.
Bruce.
Hi All,
Has anyone tried using DateTextField with DatePicker, that instead of having a
calendar image beside the DateTextField and calendar pops up when click, it
actually pops up when you click the text field itself?
Any response will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Wen Tong
--
The only
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo
