t again!
Julian
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/generics-tp18083910p18493875.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional c
.
>
> Thanks to the Wicket team yet again!
> Julian
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/generics-tp18083910p18493875.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -
I ported all our projects to 1.4-m3 (from 1.4-m2).
It was quite large - about 500 source files. Everything
worked out nicely.
I can say, that I am very happy with actual generics style.
I think, that this is how generics should be applied in Wicket.
Good work!
Thanks to the Wicket team yet
pertyModel(bean, "listPropertyFromThatBean"))
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Sam Barrow wrote:
> I've noticed in some places where generics wildcards may be useful that
> they are not used. For example, in IColumn.
> If I have a Type and a SubType that extends Type, I can't use
>
That's exactly what I do now (wrapped model). Just wondering if there was a
technical reason behind it.
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
-Original Message-
From: Pedro Santos
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:03:16
To:
Subject: Re: Generics
Basically the list view depend from
(wrapped model). Just wondering if there was a
> technical reason behind it.
>
> Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Pedro Santos
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:03:16
> To:
> Subject: Re: Generics
>
> Basically the list view depend
I have casting problem:
dropDown = new DropDownChoice(, new
ChoiceRenderer(...));
dropDown.getChoiceRenderer().getDisplayValue(dropDown.getModelObject());
<-- DOES NOT COMPILE
Is this a wicket bug or bug in me?
**
Martin
-
Has anybody else had problems with AutoCompleteTextField and generics.
It almost seems like I'm dealing with an eclipse bug.
But basically if I call
behavior.getChoices.add(xxx) it is always highlighted in red because,
I am restricted by the model use "T" but the list wants &q
e subclass would actually _want_ to use the model for something). Just
drop the T parameter and avoid the noise if required.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/generics-tp18083910p19065291.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
This is not really Wicket related, but I don't quite know where else to
ask this. The question is: why won't this compile?
// I define a model
IModel> subgenreModel = new
AbstractReadOnlyModel>() {
...
}
// Here I try to use the model
FieldSwitchPanel subgenrefield = *new
SubgenreFieldSwi
Maybes it's simple and I missed it, but why don't Page and WebPage implement
generics? (Or maybe it's just coming in next milestone?)
It would ensure that I don't pass an IModel to a page that needs an
IModel for it's model. Also, from any anonymous subclass of
I just migrated to 1.4-M1 and converted all my classes to use the new
generics support. It cleaned up my code quite nicely - I got to remove a
lot of casting and cured many unchecked/raw messages.
It also make the code much more readable - especially in list views, etc.
Excellent work, Wicket
+1 for do it right, no matter if the api breaks or not
Am 07.06.2008 um 09:20 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
so i tried to remove the generic type from component in
sandbox/ivaynberg/wicket-generics branch and ran into what i think is
a deal breaker for this design
class component {
public void
hi igor,
that's a mess. :-(
i would go for decoupling component/model for 1.4 - that makes a clean cut for
the api towards generics. everything else is just half-baked.
my 2c, --- jan.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [
On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thoughts and ideas?
Is there much else apart from Generic's that's in 1.4 that would
benefit from a release 'sooner' rather than 'later'?
I know the intentions's not to have it much different, but not
changing 1.3's overri
I'm +1 for trying to decouple model from component, and if it takes
longer then so be it.
I'm pretty convinced that the problem is the 1-1 model-component
coupling and that generics only pointed out this problem.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
so i tried to remove t
the 1-1 model-component coupling
> and that generics only pointed out this problem.
>
> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> so i tried to remove the generic type from component in
>> sandbox/ivaynberg/wicket-generics branch and ran into wh
.
> i would almost reconsider 1.4 and its scope and opt to include a model
> decoupling (however and if that is possible) refactor in it. otherwise
> i fear we will break the whole generics model again in 1.5 and users
> will have to relearn how to use them with wicket.
Model decoupli
er, but then again I didn't
> even think that getModelObject() would be overriden in
> the generified subclasses (I don't consider needing to do
> Foo foo = (Foo) getModelObject() a problem). The same
> goes for getModel().
>
>> i would almost reconsider 1.4 and its
onent a viable alternative
for 1.4 (with less reuse of type variable names than what
I'm guilty of :)). That is if we want to provide a fairly
compatible alternative for migrating from 1.3.
But on longer term, decoupling IModel from Component might
be the best thing to have come out of this generic
ible alternative for migrating from 1.3.
>
> But on longer term, decoupling IModel from Component might
> be the best thing to have come out of this generics episode.
>
> Best wishes,
> Timo
>
> --
> Timo Rantalaiho
> Reaktor Innovations Oyhttp://www.ri.fi/ >
&
subclasses of Component a viable alternative
>> for 1.4 (with less reuse of type variable names than what
>> I'm guilty of :)). That is if we want to provide a fairly
>> compatible alternative for migrating from 1.3.
Hi,
if the consequences are a cleaner api then I think to decouple the model is
right.
The migration for older code may be hard. But I think it will be worth it
when the new code base is more robust.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/wicket-generics-tp17706107p17757524
I don't know if i was clear enough, sorry about that.
I meant if you have something like :
public Component, ID extends Serializable>{
// getter here
public MODEL getModel() { }
// setter here
public void setModel(final MODEL model){ }
}
then, you don't have to do anything, basically all yo
which is exactly what we are trying to avoid - having generics in Component.
-Matej
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Ricky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if i was clear enough, sorry about that.
>
> I meant if you have something like :
>
> public Componen
MAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> which is exactly what we are trying to avoid - having generics in
> Component.
>
> -Matej
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Ricky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know if i was clear enough, sorry about that.
> >
>
I agree completely.
- Brill
On 15-Jul-08, at 3:28 AM, Wilhelmsen Tor Iver wrote:
Brill Pappin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd say that WIcket *is a product*, and as such the consumers
of that product have the final say.
Not any more than you can e.g. go to Ford Motor Co. and demand they
make
nope. No problem for me. Try pasting here the problematic code
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Douglas Ferguson
wrote:
> Has anybody else had problems with AutoCompleteTextField and generics.
>
> It almost seems like I'm dealing with an eclipse bug.
>
> But
Hi,
I am still very very new to Java and Wicket of course too,
so excuse me if this is a dumb question.
I swiched my project to Wicket 1.4-rc4 now and got all these
wonderful warnings about the "Raw types" of the components
in my sources.
Are there any examples that highlight the handling of
the
new DropDownChoice ?
-igor
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Martin
Makundi wrote:
> I have casting problem:
>
> dropDown = new DropDownChoice(, new
> ChoiceRenderer(...));
>
> dropDown.getChoiceRenderer().getDisplayValue(dropDown.getModelObject());
> <-- DOES NOT COMPILE
>
> Is this a wicket
> new DropDownChoice ?
Maybe ...
**
Martin
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Martin
> Makundi wrote:
>> I have casting problem:
>>
>> dropDown = new DropDownChoice(, new
>> ChoiceRenderer(...));
>>
>> dropDown.getChoiceRenderer().getDisplayValue(dropDown.getModelObject());
>> <-- DOES NOT
Just because the constructor is declared that way (with the ?) doesn't mean
you have to declare your variables that way.
On Jun 12, 2009 4:43 PM, "Martin Makundi" <
martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
> new DropDownChoice ?
Maybe ...
**
Martin
> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:06 AM, Martin
declaration is not the problem. from what i remember from generics (I might
be wrong), you're not allowed to instantiate "generically". you have to tell
the compiler exactly what type you want. at runtime it has no idea about
generics.
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 12:41 AM, James Carman
But, the compiler only knows what you're allowed to do by the type of
the variable. You do not need to declare your variables with the
wildcards.
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Cristi Manole wrote:
> declaration is not the problem. from what i remember from generics (I might
&g
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Cristi Manole wrote:
>> declaration is not the problem. from what i remember from generics (I might
>> be wrong), you're not allowed to instantiate "generically". you have to tell
>> the compiler exactly what type you want. at r
ns.
>
> Tricky
>
> **
> Martin
>
> 2009/6/13 James Carman :
>> But, the compiler only knows what you're allowed to do by the type of
>> the variable. You do not need to declare your variables with the
>> wildcards.
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 12,
of
>>> the variable. You do not need to declare your variables with the
>>> wildcards.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 6:31 PM, Cristi Manole
>>> wrote:
>>>> declaration is not the problem. from what i remember from generics (I might
>>>&
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Martin
Makundi wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Yes.. this is true but not ideally consistent. More consistent would be
>
> DropDownChoice dropDown = new DropDownChoice extends BaseClass>("id");
You can't instantiate with a wildcard type. That's not allowed by the
Java language.
>> DropDownChoice dropDown = new DropDownChoice> extends BaseClass>("id");
>
> You can't instantiate with a wildcard type. That's not allowed by the
> Java language.
Ah yes... I'm getting confused myself. So the real problem is that I
instantiate new DropDownChoice("id") but the method
getChoiceR
On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Martin
Makundi wrote:
>>> DropDownChoice dropDown = new DropDownChoice>> extends BaseClass>("id");
>>
>> You can't instantiate with a wildcard type. That's not allowed by the
>> Java language.
>
> Ah yes... I'm getting confused myself. So the real problem is that I
OK, my own fault:
DropDownChoice ps = new
DropDownChoice() so the variable type spoils it.
**
Martin
2009/6/13 James Carman :
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 9:25 AM, Martin
> Makundi wrote:
DropDownChoice dropDown = new DropDownChoice>>> extends BaseClass>("id");
>>>
>>> You can't instantiate wi
Hi,
Working on my first application using 1.4.x and generics and have a
question regarding the use of SortableDataProvider. Within my extensions
of this class I quite commonly obtain the id of an object within the
iterator method and then load the object via a LoadableDetchableModel
within the
public void populateItem(Item> item, String
componentId,
IModel model)
, the way it is in ICellPopulator? Am I smoking or misunderstanding
generics?
Luke
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/PropertyColumn-and-generics-tp20335170p20335170.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mail
Hi-
Is there any interest in making inmethod grid generic?
I have a half-way implementation that makes IDataSource -- it does
not make IQueryResult generic though.
Is there anywhere to attach patches for inmethod-grid? I don't see
anything on:
http://wicketstuff.org/jira/secure/Dashboard
Hi Linda,
You are assuming that
IModel>
is a subtype of
IModel>
In java this is not the case (even if Subgenre extends DomainObject).
You'll need an explicit cast to make this work:
IModel> castedModel =
(IModel>) subgenreModel;
Regards,
Erik.
Linda van der Pal wrote:
This i
This looks exactly like the DropDownChoice issue that has been debated
recently. See the comments in JIRA:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
The problem is that IModel> doesn't work
as we intuitively expect it to. It won't match IModel>
(nor IModel> for that matter).
As suggested
Thanks!
Erik van Oosten wrote:
Hi Linda,
You are assuming that
IModel>
is a subtype of
IModel>
In java this is not the case (even if Subgenre extends DomainObject).
You'll need an explicit cast to make this work:
IModel> castedModel =
(IModel>) subgenreModel;
Regards,
Erik.
Hello,
the generics solution for the DropdownChoice is weird in my opinion.
I want to write like this:
List genders = getGenderList();
DropdownChoice new DropDownChoice("fieldId", new
PropertyModel(currentPerson, "gender"), genders);
But the compilation fails because of
Hi wicketers,
I found inmethod-gric generics for wicket 1.5 on wicketstuff but can not
find one for wicket 1.4.x. Is there any maven repo for 1.4.x?
Thanks,
Duy
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
Hi,
Of course page will be generified, it's just a matter of time that
Johan can invest in it :)
-Matej
On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybes it's simple and I missed it, but why don't Page and WebPage implement
> gen
5:03 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybes it's simple and I missed it, but why don't Page and WebPage
> implement
> > generics? (Or maybe it's just coming in next milestone?)
> >
> > It would ensure that I don't pass an IMod
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Maybes it's simple and I missed it, but why don't Page and WebPage
> implement
> > generics? (Or maybe it's just coming in next milestone?)
> >
> > It would ensure that I don't pass an IModel to a page that needs
>
t a matter of time that
> > Johan can invest in it :)
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Maybes it's simple and I missed it, but why don't Page and WebPage
>
ra lookups would be necessary. Implementation code of
iterator might get a bit uglier, though.
- add a second type as shown with example above
Would lead to "redundant" type definitions for many usecases where iterator +
model actually return the same type.
I'd really like t
hecked' and 'raw use' warnings now, so I'd like to know
what the recommended approach is.
Thanks,
-Doug
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-1.4-and-generics-tp17115357p17115357.html
Sent from the Wicket -
Doug Donohoe wrote:
I just migrated to 1.4-M1 and converted all my classes to use the new
generics support. It cleaned up my code quite nicely - I got to remove a
lot of casting and cured many unchecked/raw messages.
It also make the code much more readable - especially in list views, etc
spring support has been there since 1.2, see wicket-spring and spring examples.
-igor
On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Andre Prasetya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Doug Donohoe wrote:
>
> > I just migrated to 1.4-M1 and converted all my classes to use the new
> > generics
Sun, May 11, 2008 at 8:10 PM, Andre Prasetya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Doug Donohoe wrote:
I just migrated to 1.4-M1 and converted all my classes to use the new
generics support. It cleaned up my code quite nicely - I got to remove a
lot of casting and cured many unchecked/raw me
Andre Prasetya
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Doug Donohoe wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I just migrated to 1.4-M1 and converted all my classes to use the new
> > > > generics support. It cleaned up
merged
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Andre Prasetya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> thanks, how about the wicket-spring-annot ?
>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/wicket/wicket-spring-annot/
>
> is the 1.3.3 version compatible with the 1.4-m1 ?
>
> Frank Bille wrote:
>
> > http://repo1
thanks, how about the wicket-spring-annot ?
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/wicket/wicket-spring-annot/
is the 1.3.3 version compatible with the 1.4-m1 ?
Frank Bille wrote:
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/wicket/wicket-spring/1.4-m1/
---
there is no need for a separate annots project since the entire
codebase is now on java5, so annots was merged into wicket-spring
-igor
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 2:30 AM, Andre Prasetya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> thanks, how about the wicket-spring-annot ?
>
> http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/
Thanks, I'm still new to Wicket, is there any examples in using 1.4 ? a
best practices maybe ?
-andre-
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
there is no need for a separate annots project since the entire
codebase is now on java5, so annots was merged into wicket-spring
-igor
--
we have the wicket-examples project that demonstrates various
components. you can browse live here http://wicketstuff.org/wicket13
wicket 1.4 is basically the same as wicket 1.3 but with generics support.
-igor
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Andre Prasetya
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
&g
Hello there,
I'm a Wicket Virgin (hm ;-) and have just started to look at Wicket 1.4. It
seems something is wrong with the generics changes there. I have a page which
itself has a model: a CompoundPropertyModel. Most basic Wicket
components are generic: things like Label need a type para
this right
(just add a generics wildcard)?
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
according to this post;
http://tinyurl.com/qlghyf
the inmethod grid it he wicketstuff modules was to get generics.
I'm finding the missing generics a real pain in the behind but I also
have a recent checkout of the 1.4-SNAPSHOT of wicketstuff, and it does
not yet have generics.
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:54 AM, Frank Tegtmeyer
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am still very very new to Java and Wicket of course too,
> so excuse me if this is a dumb question.
>
> I swiched my project to Wicket 1.4-rc4 now and got all these
> wonderful warnings about the "Raw types" of the components
> in
hey,
why does the panel is not using generics for type safety?
regards
--
Jetzt kostenlos herunterladen: Internet Explorer 8 und Mozilla Firefox 3 -
sicherer, schneller und einfacher! http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/atbrowser
-
To
r all required
objects at once.
Sven
jonny.w...@fiveprime.com wrote:
Hi,
Working on my first application using 1.4.x and generics and have a
question regarding the use of SortableDataProvider. Within my extensions
of this class I quite commonly obtain the id of an object within the
iterator metho
roach:
>
> Why don't you just iterate over your domain objects in the first place?
> They will be loaded anyway to be displayed on your component. So your
> approach triggers 1+n selects instead of 1 select for all required
> objects at once.
>
> Sven
>
--
View t
Hi Jonny,
yes, it works exactly like you described it.
Sven
jwray wrote:
Hi Sven,
Thanks for your reply. Since I sent the original question I ended up doing
what you suggested and now I'm wondering why I ever used the id projection
approach. Habit I guess, formed with previous frameworks.
ng
> componentId, IModel model)
>
> , the way it is in ICellPopulator? Am I smoking or misunderstanding
> generics?
>
> Luke
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/PropertyColumn-and-generics-tp20335170p20335387.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list
ons, especially
http://www.nabble.com/generics-to18083910.html#a18083910 .
But I bit confused.
As I understand, if I have a bean that will be used in a
CompoundPropertyModel, then I should put this as the T parameter, right?
If I don't use a special model or a type in that model, what should I
> List genders = getGenderList();
> DropdownChoice new DropDownChoice("fieldId", new
> PropertyModel(currentPerson, "gender"), genders);
The class type parameter for the dropdown and models there should be Gender:
That the model delegates to a property in a Person object should not matter.
List
Hi,
IModel personModel = getPersonModel();
List genders = getGenderList();
DropDownChoice dropDownChoiceGender = new
DropDownChoice("genderFieldId", new PropertyModel(personModel,
"gender"), genderList);
Regards,
Bernard
On Thu, 2 Sep 2010 10:02:27 +0300, you wrote:
&
Hi Duy,
Generics were added only to the 1.5 branch of inmethod-grid. There is no
plan to backport this to the 1.4 branch.
Attila
2011/7/2 Duy Do
>
> Hi wicketers,
>
> I found inmethod-gric generics for wicket 1.5 on wicketstuff but can not
> find one for wicket 1.4.x. Is there
Attila, thank you for your information.
On 7/3/11 1:37 AM, Attila Király wrote:
Hi Duy,
Generics were added only to the 1.5 branch of inmethod-grid. There is no
plan to backport this to the 1.4 branch.
Attila
2011/7/2 Duy Do
Hi wicketers,
I found inmethod-gric generics for wicket 1.5 on
I started migrating my code from wicket 1.4.19 to 6. Finally ! :)
I found a FilterToolbar bug:
Once you were able to create DataTable wrapped inside of
FilterForm
currently FilterToolbar requires you for those two types to be identical:
public FilterToolbar(final DataTable table, final
FilterF
Spring 4 is able to wire/inject generic beans, as described here:
http://spring.io/blog/2013/12/03/spring-framework-4-0-and-java-generics .
However, I'm experiencing problems when using generic beans with Wicket's
SpringBean.
I basically have following situation, two concrete dao's
definitions for many usecases where
iterator + model actually return the same type.
I'd really like to see support for generics with these cases as well.
Best regards, --- Jan.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For a
ped within
> iterator and no extra lookups would be necessary. Implementation code of
> iterator might get a bit uglier, though.
>
> - add a second type as shown with example above
>
> Would lead to "redundant" type definitions for many usecases wh
[ ] IDataProvider
[ X ] Iterator> , drop model
[ ] Leave as is.
Thijs
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ ] IDataProvider
[X] Iterator> , drop model
[X] Leave as is.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 4/24/08, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ] IDataProvider
> [ ] Iterator> , drop model
> [X] Leave as is.
I don't see the additional benefit of removing the model method. It
only breaks API for nothing much gained.
Martijn
e integer -> object mapping usecase is
not common and could lead to performance problems. However, I'm
somewhat torn between the last two options. Having that model method
there was somewhat confusing in the first place when I was learning
about it, but that could just be because generic
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> [ ] IDataProvider
> [ ] Iterator> , drop model
> [X] Leave as is.
- --
Philip A. Chapman
Desktop and Web Application Development:
Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.
> VOTE:
>
> [ ] IDataProvider
> [ ] Iterator> , drop model
> [X] Leave as is.
>
>
-Matej
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I would have a better idea if I would have had the chance to actually
play with it, but here is mine:
[ ] IDataProvider
[ x ] Iterator> , drop model
[ ] Leave as is.
Looks most elegant to me, and it is immediately clear what T is for.
Also, I think that generics are bloody verbose anyway, so
ider
> [ x ] Iterator> , drop model
> [ ] Leave as is.
>
> Looks most elegant to me, and it is immediately clear what T is for.
> Also, I think that generics are bloody verbose anyway, so I'm not much
> in favor of shortening things up - and not support some of the use
(Iterator source) {
...
}
abstract IModel map(T sourceElement);
}
-
--
Kent Tong
Wicket tutorials freely available at http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDW
Axis2 tutorials freely available at http://www.agileskills2.org/DWSAA
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/VOTE%3A-Generics-
;
> -Doug
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-1.4-and-generics-tp17115357p17115357.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
You are correct, WebPage is for the model type of your page. This allows
you to do MyObject getObject(), etc. I, too, am trying to deal with all of
the generics warnings right now and figure out what my strategy will be for
pages without a model.
One suggestion that has been made on the list is
nded approach is.
>
> Thanks,
>
> -Doug
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-1.4-and-generics-tp17115357p17115478.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
a Wicket Virgin (hm ;-) and have just started to look at Wicket 1.4. It
> seems something is wrong with the generics changes there. I have a page which
> itself has a model: a CompoundPropertyModel. Most basic Wicket
> components are generic: things like Label need a type parameter specifying
> Hello there,
>>
>> I'm a Wicket Virgin (hm ;-) and have just started to look at Wicket 1.4. It
>> seems something is wrong with the generics changes there. I have a page which
>> itself has a model: a CompoundPropertyModel. Most basic Wicket
>> components are
tstuff modules was to get generics.
>
> I'm finding the missing generics a real pain in the behind but I also have a
> recent checkout of the 1.4-SNAPSHOT of wicketstuff, and it does not yet have
> generics.
>
> Does anyone know if this component has been abandoned or not?
> If I
atej
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>> according to this post;
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/qlghyf
>>
>> the inmethod grid it he wicketstuff modules was to get generics.
>>
>> I'm finding the missing generics a real pain in t
That would be great!
If you need an area to focus on, it's the generics that type things
like getSelectedItems() etc. and some of the other common overrides.
- Brill Pappin
On 8-May-09, at 5:57 PM, Matej Knopp wrote:
Found the patch, will assign it to jira issue. And possibly
What's the meaning you want to attach to the "missing" generic parameter?
Best,
Ernesto
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 12:23 PM, Kurt Zitze wrote:
> hey,
>
> why does the panel is not using generics for type safety?
>
> regards
> --
> Jetzt kostenlos herunterla
101 - 200 of 678 matches
Mail list logo
