[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote
>The way 1.3 works currently has been fine with me and any type mismatch
in programming error usually result in crash with obvious location of
>error and easily fixed.
This may be an option for small projects or for personal use. But for
big projects for software sold all
;
> - Brill Pappin
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:25 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
>
page... Why would I even
bother to implement it at all?
- Brill Pappin
-Original Message-
From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:25 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics wit
i guess my question is: if you have a list and you are never going to
put anything inside it, do you think a generic type is still useful?
there are plenty of usecases where component's default model slot is
not used, so why do we have to generify it? even if the mix is 50/50
that means 50% is comp
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Basically, my feeling remains the same - generics are part of Java, so Java
> programmers are going to have to get use to them. They are very valuable
> when you need them. We just have to be careful that we implement
I think Stefan and Doug both summarize this well. One additional
description of "type B" applications that seems to be appearing on this
thread is apps that are able to get by with mostly
string-property-name-based models. Like PropertyModel,
CompoundPropertyModel, etc.
On the other hand, you ha
Stefan makes a good point. I have raised this as an example before.
My site (online.ddpoker.com, just went live) is a mix of A and B. To make
my code cleaner, I created several simple subclasses for cases where I don't
use models. VoidPanel, VoidContainer (only a handful, really).
Also, s
Brill Pappin wrote
>I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward* generics.
>Frankly I can't even see why its an issue at all, the language has
evolved and uses them... Why would Wicket not also use them its inline
with >the current state of the language?
>
>There is no reason that people
