i want the getModelObject() (which is in fact the getDefaultModelObject()) to
return the actual type that i dont need to do unchecked casts. i'm just
wondering, now that everything uses generics, why does the panel do not use
generics? just want to understand the reason behind this.
regards
Nachricht-
Von: garz [mailto:g...@gmx.net]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. September 2009 13:24
An: users@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Panel not using generics
i want the getModelObject() (which is in fact the getDefaultModelObject()) to
return the actual type that i dont need to do unchecked casts
o unchecked casts. i'm just
> wondering, now that everything uses generics, why does the panel do not use
> generics? just want to understand the reason behind this.
>
> regards
> garz
>
>
> reiern70 wrote:
> >
> > What's the meaning you want to attach to t
r...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:58 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Panel not using generics
The main point I could object is that you might have panels that are not
"associated" to a model... and then you will still have to pass a model
object type to avoi
y not just require IModel
?
Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Generics-changes-in-1.4-rc1-tp20599173p20599173.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-ma
a ListView and a DropDownChoice.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/ListView-vs-DropDownChoice-with-Generics-tp20684801p20684801.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe
.findAllUsers();
}
}
I'm trying to use this as the Choices model in a DropDownChoice, but no
luck. I'm sure I'm missing an or a or a somewhere but I at a lost
as to what the exact problem is. I've been a consumer of generics forever,
but actually being on the creation si
Coming up to speed in Wicket and see some things that I don't know how to
interpret regarding generics.
First, I have a form subclass that looks like this:
private class MyForm extends Form
Eclipse shows the following warning:
Form is a raw type. References to generic type Form s
returns the raw type Form in wicket 1.5.6.
> Could a committer please change the return type back to Form so we
> don't have to suppress those annoying generics warnings?
>
> thanks.
>
> -
> To unsubscri
I think you're confused.
If you want to filter a collection based on type T, then your filter your
extend T.
The idea here is that your model object type for the filter is the same as
that retrieved by the data provider.
As such you can have a POJO of the same type T on which you apply the
filteri
Confused I am not :)
Let me give you three examples...
I. filtering with a subset of properties
This is a class that worked perfectly in 1.4.19:
public class CustomersDataProvider extends
HibernateDataProvider implements
IFilterStateLocator {
@SuppressWarnings("unused")
public static cl
; 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 that implement a
> generic typed interface dao.:
&
Hi, I have just created a ticket here with a quickstart to demo the problem:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5808
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/SpringBean-doesn-t-support-Generics-tp4668928p4668937.html
Sent from the Users forum mailing
When trying to use the DefaultDataTable in combination i'm running into what I
think is a "bug" in the generification of ChoiceFilteredPropertyColumn,
DefaultDataTable is parameterized with type and the constructor expects
IColumn for it's column types. if I try to parameterize
ChoiceFiltered
was using a Model with a
> DefaultTreeModel object, but I can't do that anymore (TreeModel is not
> necessarily Serializable). Why not just require IModel
> ?
>
> Adrian
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Generics-changes-in-1.4-rc1-tp20
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> Please make issues for this in jira
>
Since you said issues, I created 3 issues: WICKET-1947, WICKET-1948,
WICKET-1949
Adrian
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Generics-changes-in-1.4-rc1-tp20599173p20615568.html
Sent from the Wick
View and a DropDownChoice.
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/ListView-vs-DropDownChoice-with-Generics-tp20684801p20684801.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> --
gt;
> I'm trying to use this as the Choices model in a DropDownChoice, but no
> luck. I'm sure I'm missing an or a or a somewhere but I at a
> lost
> as to what the exact problem is. I've been a consumer of generics forever,
> but actually being on the
On Sun, 22 Feb 2009, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
> I've been meaning to ask on the dev list why that is. Being forced to
> declare the "? extends User" for a model like yours seems to add complexity,
> and force a local variable. I haven't looked at it that much, but I know
> that every time I've had
gt;return userService().findAllUsers();
>>}
>>}
>>
>>
>> I'm trying to use this as the Choices model in a DropDownChoice, but no
>> luck. I'm sure I'm missing an or a or a somewhere but I at a
>&
r?
Nope, just change your model supertype from List to List
> That just seems odd.
Welcome to Java generics...
Martijn
--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
Get it now: http://www.a
gt;
> Nope, just change your model supertype from List to List Foo>
>
>> That just seems odd.
>
> Welcome to Java generics...
>
Thanks. It's working now.
private class AllUsersModel extends LoadableDetachableModel>{
; to the DropDownChoice constructor?
> >
> > Nope, just change your model supertype from List to List > Foo>
> >
> >> That just seems odd.
> >
> > Welcome to Java generics...
> >
> Thanks. It's working now.
>
>
>
On Tue, 24 Feb 2009, Matthew Hanlon wrote:
> I've always handled the typing problem with DropDownChoice and my list
> models by "just ignoring it" and not applying type parameters to the
> DropDownChoice. This is because if I use the same IModel Foo>> for a ListView, then I get an error in the Lis
On Wed, 25 Feb 2009, Timo Rantalaiho wrote:
> I'd say that ListView is wrong here.
>
> I created a new Jira issue on fixing that
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2126
>
> and will do if there are no objections or better ideas.
Well, Igor objected very convincingly :)
So now
I was just attempt to use the ListChoice and it seems to me that the
constructor signatures are wrong.
The model for this should be List not List, otherwise you can't
select more than one item (T), which is the point..
D/
-
To
tion-about-Wicket-and-generics-tp2341004p2341007.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:37 AM, Mike Dee wrote:
>
> I'd like to try and understand this. What could possibly be?
>
It would be whatever your form is "editing."
> But isn't "TextField" implying text (or a string). Would TextField
> make sense (haven't tried it yet)? If it makes sense, then m
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Mike Dee wrote:
>
> Also noticed in prior messages with similar topic that someone suggested
> using "Void" (Form). Never knew there was a Void keyword (capital V).
> Is this a recommended technique for Form (ie. Form)?
It's certainly possible. Remember that th
-Wicket-and-generics-tp2341004p2341026.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
e a login screen that
> simply capture username and password strings.
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Question-about-Wicket-and-generics-tp2341004p2341026.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing li
Great, didn't know there was a built in LoginForm.
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Question-about-Wicket-and-generics-tp2341004p2341060.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabbl
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Mike Dee wrote:
>
> In my experience, there are lots of other situations too. For example, we
> have lots of forms for doing searches. The form gathers the search
> criteria. Maybe it would make sense to have a SearchFormCriteria class,
> which would be the mod
i have written plenty forms and about 99% of them have Form.
models on the form are just not that useful, its the fields that
care.
-igor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 5:45 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:40 AM, Mike Dee wrote:
>>
>> Also noticed in prior messages with similar to
just offering the other side of the coin...i didnt say we were going
to yank the generics from the Form, chill :)
-igor
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 8:38 AM, James Carman
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
>> i have written plenty forms and about 99%
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> i have written plenty forms and about 99% of them have Form.
> models on the form are just not that useful, its the fields that
> care.
That doesn't mean that's the way *everyone* uses them. Then again, my
way isn't necessarily the way ev
model? How are others doing this?
Mike
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Question-about-Wicket-and-generics-tp2341004p2341288.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
Betreff: Re: Question about Wicket and generics
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> i have written plenty forms and about 99% of them have Form.
> models on the form are just not that useful, its the fields that
> care.
That doesn't mean that's the way *
in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Question-about-Wicket-and-generics-tp2341004p2341500.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr
it still under development? Does it
support generics now?
Does anybody use it togehter with wicket 1.4?
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h
I'm probably too late coming into the discussion but from reviewing past
threads it appears the only reason for 1.4-m3 over m2 and removing
generics from Component is because some things like Page and Label don't
make sense with generics?
If that is really the only reason (and th
please open a jira issue.
-igor
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:44 AM, Dylan Schell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> When trying to use the DefaultDataTable in combination i'm running into what
> I think is a "bug" in the generification of ChoiceFilteredPropertyColumn,
>
> DefaultDataTable is parameteri
ListChoice doesn't allow you to choose multiple. You want ListMultipleChoice.
On Tue, Jun 29, 2010 at 8:29 AM, Douglas Ferguson
wrote:
> I was just attempt to use the ListChoice and it seems to me that the
> constructor signatures are wrong.
>
> The model for this should be List not List, other
Hi,
Already in Wicket there is GenericPanel, GenericWebPage,
GenericFragment, IGenericComponent, and IModel of course is already
generic.
But there is still IBehavior without Generics and several standard
components which do not implement IGenericComponent such a Label.
Are there plans to
/dollars
in red, and a highlighting widget used to show matching search results.
We are using Wicket 1.4-trunk (as of yesterday due to a fix we submitted).
We migrated from 1.3.x to 1.4 mid-project. Getting used to generics took
about 1 1/2 days, but was well worth the effort. Consider this a
two
Thenk you all for your replies!
I found a hand full of mailing list entrys with hints for patches to
make some classes generic. Are there any attempts to integrate them into
the current trunk? I think a generic IGridColumn would be very handy.
Should I start doing it?
Stefan
I think there is a datagrid project in wicket stuff jira. If you do
any work (against current trunk - not 1.3) patch is always welcome.
You can create a jira issue for it and attach it there.
-Matej
On Mon, Oct 12, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Stefan Lindner wrote:
> Thenk you all for your replies!
>
> I fo
det: Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 17:26
An: users@wicket.apache.org
Cc: e...@shinsetsu.nl
Betreff: Re: inmethod datagrid and wicket 1.4 and generics
I think there is a datagrid project in wicket stuff jira. If you do
any work (against current trunk - not 1.3) patch is always welcome.
You can create a
the wrong way. Approx
> half of inmehtod grid is generic now.
>
> Stefan
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Matej Knopp [mailto:matej.kn...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Montag, 12. Oktober 2009 17:26
> An: users@wicket.apache.org
> Cc: e...@shinsetsu.nl
> Betreff
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Matej Knopp [mailto:matej.kn...@gmail.com]
Gesendet: Dienstag, 13. Oktober 2009 12:08
An: users@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: inmethod datagrid and wicket 1.4 and generics
Sure. If you have commit access to wicket stuff feel free to branch the trunk.
-Matej
On Tue
Greetings, Wicket Wizards,
I am updating a sample Wicket program from 1.3.6 to 1.4.3 and running into
a few generics-related issues. I am hoping you folks can quickly set me
straight. My code appears to run successfully and passes its JUnit tests,
despite the warnings I would like to remove
k to it on the wiki page
> http://wicketstuff.org/confluence/display/STUFFWIKI/Wiki.
>
> The project remained in 1.0 state since the end of last year. Is it
> compatible with wicket 1.4? Is it still under development? Does it
> support generics now?
>
> Does anybody use
es it
support generics now?
Does anybody use it togehter with wicket 1.4?
Stefan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apach
splay/STUFFWIKI/Wiki.
>>
>> The project remained in 1.0 state since the end of last year. Is it
>> compatible with wicket 1.4? Is it still under development? Does it
>> support generics now?
>>
>> Does anybody use it togehter with wicket 1.4?
>>
>>
Hi,
the concept of IModel seems to be very obvious. It is simply some kind
of reference and offers a getter and a setter.
When used with ordinary object, everything works fine. An IModel that
contains a String can easily be mapped to a TextField.
The text field calls "getObject" to show the initi
For example in Session there is the method:
public final M getMetaData(final MetaDataKey
key)
This makes it seriously difficult to use this methods for retrieving
vales that have e.g. a MetaDataKey>, since Collection
does not extend Serializable (although most implementations do). Afaik,
you can
Hi,
There is a discussion about this since Wicket 1.4 (the first version of
Wicket built against JDK 1.5).
The main stopper is that using generics makes the code even more verbose.
And many people don't like this.
So there are few Generic*** versions of the most used components.
Martin Gri
I see, I guess this was summarized here:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/generics
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 2:27 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Hi,
>
> There is a discussion about this since Wicket 1.4 (the first version of
> Wicket built against JDK 1.5).
> The
Hi boys,
I would like to ask something about wicket generics. I have a warning, that
I don't know, how to solve.
For example in such a line:
IModel model = new StringResourceModel( ... );
I have a warning, which I cannot r
1.4-trunk (as of yesterday due to a fix we submitted).
> We migrated from 1.3.x to 1.4 mid-project. Getting used to generics took
> about 1 1/2 days, but was well worth the effort. Consider this a
> two-thumbs-up success story for generics.
>
> Thanks to the people on this list
hings we did in wicket: a bookmarkable paging navigator
>> (which is used across the site), components to show negative
>> percent/dollars in red, and a highlighting widget used to show matching
>> search results.
>>
>> We are using Wicket 1.4-trunk (as of ye
The address.
*/
public String getAddress() {
return address;
}
}
}
at least on my IDE
Best,
Ernesto
On Sat, Nov 7, 2009 at 9:42 AM, Philip Johnson wrote:
> Greetings, Wicket Wizards,
>
> I am updating a sample Wicket program from 1.3.6 to 1.4.3 and running into
> a
gt; *
> * @return The name of this contact.
> */
> public String getName() {
> return name;
> }
>
> /**
> * Return the address of this contact.
> *
> * @return The address.
> */
> public String getAddress() {
>
Thanks so much, both of you!
Anyone have any ideas about the WicketTester code?
Problem 3: WicketTester and generics.
I clearly don't understand how to test with WicketTester. Take a look at
lines 37-39 of TestListPage:
<http://code.google.com/p/ics-wicket-examples/source/brow
Does AbstractReadOnlyModel accomplish what you're talking about?
Scott
On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Johannes Schneider
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> the concept of IModel seems to be very obvious. It is simply some kind
> of reference and offers a getter and a setter.
>
> When used with ordinary object, e
components that deal with collections in wicket always reuse the same
instance of collection is one was provided where it makes sense.
setobject is still called on the model, but is called with the same
instance of collection. this is necessary so that if you have a model
that translates a collect
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 08:27 -0800, Scott Swank wrote:
> Does AbstractReadOnlyModel accomplish what you're talking about?
Not really. I suggest a separate interface that does not extend IModel.
Instead IModel should extend that one (since it adds the setter)...
And of course that interface should
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 09:14 -0800, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> components that deal with collections in wicket always reuse the same
> instance of collection is one was provided where it makes sense.
Yes, and therefore a setter is not necessary.
> setobject is still called on the model, but is called
On Sat, Mar 7, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Johannes Schneider
wrote:
>
> > setobject is still called on the model, but is called with the same
> > instance of collection. this is necessary so that if you have a model
> > that translates a collection of one type to a collection of another
> > can perform the
> i think "misuse" is a pretty bold word considering you are talking to
> people who designed and built imodel, dont you think? :)
Well, I think you are right. Sorry for that.
I just mean, that it has a bad smell here...
>
> if we do what you suggest then we would end up with:
>
> interface im
you are right, the components that just read a collection do just
that, read it. they simply ignore the setter method in imodel. no big
deal, just because you are given an interface doesnt mean you have to
use all the methods in it. thus abstractreadonlymodel.
however, a lot of components manipula
Thanks for your reply. I think I can (at least partially) understand
your position and think there aren't any new arguments here I can
mention. So the discussions seems to be at an end here.
Maybe it is a matter of taste... If I find any time, I will create a
patch...
Regards,
Johannes
On Sat,
Hi All,
I'm new to Wicket and I'm studying it using "Wicket in Action". As you
surely know, this book is based on Wicket 1.3, that does NOT use
generics, while the current version is 1.4 and DOES use them (as will do
the next ones).
Put aside this page:
https://cwiki.apache.
Hi All,
I'm new to Wicket and I'm studying it with "Wicket in Action". As you
surely know, this book is based on Wicket 1.3, that does NOT use
generics, while the current version is 1.4 and DOES use them (as will do
the next ones).
Put aside this page:
https://cwiki.apache.
thats there to give developers a better hint. i am not too opposed to
removing it. feel free to file an rfe.
-igor
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 3:08 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> For example in Session there is the method:
>
> public final M getMetaData(final MetaDataKey
> key)
>
> This makes it seriousl
It is generified in trunk, but it might be possible that it was not
yet at the time of the 1.4-m1 release.
Maurice
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 3:47 PM, Stefan Simik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi boys,
>
> I would like to ask something about wicket generics. I have a warnin
Its
> second parameter - "new Model(text)",
>
> which I cannot generify. If I write "new Model(text)", I get an error:
> "The
> constructor Model(String) is undefined."
>
>
> I can't find out, what I am doing wrong.
>
>
> Thx
>
Uuf, great :) It works ! Thx.
But, is not String something Serializable ?
I cannot understand where was the problem,
but I know, this is more about Java Generics, not about Wicket.
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> the only thing i can quickly come up with is this
>
>
works ! Thx.
>
> But, is not String something Serializable ?
> I cannot understand where was the problem,
> but I know, this is more about Java Generics, not about Wicket.
>
>
>
>
> Johan Compagner wrote:
> >
> > the only thing i can quickly come up with is t
"new Model(text)", I get an error: "The
constructor Model(String) is undefined."
I can't find out, what I am doing wrong.
Thx
Stefan Simik
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208
e parameterized"
I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self is
parameterized.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17211948.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing l
omponent...) belongs to the raw type
> MarkupContainer.
> References to generic type MarkupContainer should be parameterized"
>
> I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self is
> parameterized.
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http:/
rror
>> }
>>
>> }
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The problematic part, is the second constructor, which calls this. Its
>> second parameter - "new Model(text)",
>>
>> which I cannot generify. If I write "new Model(text)",
id, new Model(text), new BasicStringProvider());
> >>//this(id, new Model<T>(text), new BasicStringProvider());
> >> //error
> >> }
> >>
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The problematic part, is
g the method add with a generified component but that
> container itself is not generified
>
> i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
>
> add(MarkupContainer container)
>
> then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
> thats
> you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
> > container itself is not generified
> >
> > i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
> >
> > add(MarkupContainer container)
> >
> > then suddenly a none generifie
ringProvider;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> public ExtendedLabel(String id, String text) {
>> >>this(id, new Model(text), new BasicStringProvider());
>> >>//this(id, new Model<T>(text), new
>> BasicStringProvider()
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
thats really
this.stringProvider = stringProvider;
> >> >> }
> >> >>
> >> >> public ExtendedLabel(String id, String text) {
> >> >>this(id, new Model(text), new BasicStringProvider());
> >> >>//this(id, new Model<T>(text), new
>
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes thats the reason
you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
container itself is not generified
i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
add(MarkupContainer container)
then suddenly a none generified component cant be
ontainer itself is not generified
> >
> > i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
> >
> > add(MarkupContainer container)
> >
> > then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
> > thats really stupid should mean anything
ing the method add with a generified component but that
> > > container itself is not generified
> > >
> > > i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
> > >
> > > add(MarkupContainer container)
> > >
> > > then sudd
es thats the reason
> > > >
> > > > you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
> > > > container itself is not generified
> > > >
> > > > i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
> > > >
d be using
the generic type.
Johan Compagner wrote:
I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
things
The reason it warns you
. Not
> > to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
> > things
> >
>
> The reason it warns you to use generics when generics are wanted is
> because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release) to
> use generics where gen
Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket 1.4, I
created some utility classes such as:
public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainer<Void>
public class VoidPanel extends Panel<Void>
public class StringLabel extends Label<String>
public
generics with some non-generic classes in Wicket
Somewhat related to this thread, when I moved to generics win Wicket
1.4, I created some utility classes such as:
public class VoidContainer extends WebMarkupContainer<Void> public
class VoidPanel extends Panel<Void> public class StringL
I can save you the trouble of generating the patch. I don't want
FooBar where Foo iterates over all the types in Java and Bar iterates
over all the Components, Behaviors, Sessions, Requests, Providers in
Wicket. Totally unnecessary and completely negates the idea of
generics.
Martijn
On 5/
ure, it seems like a small difference and a saving of two characters, but
here is what I believe are the benefits of doing this:
1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto-completion
2) Find Usages is more accurate (at least in IntelliJ, where I'm not aware
of a find-usages
nefits of doing this:
1) I can more easily use the features of my IDE such as auto-
completion
2) Find Usages is more accurate (at least in IntelliJ, where I'm not
aware
of a find-usages that scopes to a particular generic type)
3) Let's face it, Generics clutters up your code and mak
201 - 300 of 678 matches
Mail list logo
