, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Hi William,
If you use more than one type of model for a given component I would
hardly say that it is only a fraction of the time. Do you use only one
type of model on all your components? :o)
read again - I said 70% of my
opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
I read it, but I think most people will be using models more frequently than
30% of the time. Personally, I use them 99% of the time.
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:54 AM
the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill
in your opinion here).
[ ] (anything other than these choices?)
I see the stronger-typing made possible with Generics as a step
forward for Java and for Wicket. I believe that Generics will improve
my code, and make my life easier. I understand
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Martin Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
There are quite some methods that don't return the component,
but its class. Maybe most prominently 'getHomePage()' in Application.
This used to have the signature:
public abstract Class getHomePage();
And a popular
Yes, property model (and compound friends) don't mix well with generics.
With generics a type safe alternative is wanted (and a very good start
is Matej and Johan's type-safe model implementation).
Regards,
Sebastiaan
Jan Kriesten wrote:
hi al,
The second is almost certainly worth doing
hi william,
Wouldn't that infer that the component has to have generics, or am I
missing something here?
you miss something...
getModel/getModelObject would have to be non-final and overriden by the
specialized component (return types are covariant, so you can override object
Enlighten me with an example
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:23 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
hi william,
Wouldn't that infer
You really have to use it to appreciate the benefits. Quick glance
will just be scary :)
-Matej
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Eelco Hillenius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on
day-to-day basis.
Common, a quick glance and
, 2008 12:34 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
hi william,
Enlighten me with an example
just like that:
Component { public object getModelObject(){ ... } } FormComponentT
extends Component { public T
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 who
IMHO storing a model in a Component is more a convenience than a
fundamental part of component-ness. This may be part of the reason that
genericizing Component is so contentious.
I agree.
Eelco
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
hi william,
Enlighten me with an example
just like that:
Component { public object getModelObject(){ ... } }
FormComponentT extends Component { public T getModelObject() { ... } }
regards, --- jan.
-
To unsubscribe,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A raw type is a parameterized type in which the type parameters are not
filled in, i.e., new HashMap() (instead of new HashMapString, Integer()).
Just try to return one of your old (non-generified) HomePage.class
You could use Java's covariant return types to override getModel() to
return a specific type. Which would mean that you would need to subclass
to simulate generics (with a new subclass for each type). Also, when
using anonymous subclasses it becomes rather pointless and you'd be back
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular objections against current state. I think before
we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
what's wrong
hi sebastiaan,
You could use Java's covariant return types to override getModel() to
return a specific type. Which would mean that you would need to subclass
to simulate generics (with a new subclass for each type).
not really, you can do generify your components from a certain level
Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] They, the core developers, knows better then me
(everyday users doesn't have in-depth and extensive view on
generification pro and cons. As usual, to find a good compromise
may be _very_ tricky business).
2) How strongly do you
Wouldn't that infer that the component has to have generics, or am I
missing something here?
Something like...
public abstract class ComponentM extends IModelT, T implements
IClusterable, IConverterLocator {
...
public final M getModel
Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on
day-to-day basis.
Common, a quick glance and comparing some of the code/ examples you
see with the code you write now (with 1.2/ 1.3) is enough to get a
good - and as far as I am concerned informed well enough - idea.
Eelco
hi al,
The second is almost certainly worth doing. That said, I use PropertyModel
more often than anything else, and that doesn't allow you to make any
guarantees anyway. :-/
good point. :-)
regards, --- jan.
-
To
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0400, Hoover, William wrote:
I read it, but I think most people will be using models more frequently
than 30% of the time. Personally, I use them 99% of the time.
Really? Haven't you heard of CompoundPropertyModel?
jk
I am currently using 1.4 M1 and here are my choices:
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
2) How strongly
Hi all,
[X] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
[X] I might rethink upgrading if my
, June 02, 2008 1:22 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0400, Hoover, William wrote:
I read it, but I think most people will be using models more
frequently than 30
Wow, last time I checked CompoundPropertyModel is a model ;o)
-Original Message-
From: John Krasnay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:22 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
On Mon
Hello everyone,
I feel bad that a vote thread has been converted to one of discussion...
At this moment wicket is *for *creating custom components. If these custom
component writing gets complicated we will not be able to appreciate wicket
as much(as much as we do now).Generics will complicate
Of Al Maw
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:09 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
I think you miss John's point, which is that when you use a
CompoundPropertyModel for a component, all its children typically do
as we do now).Generics will complicate the *extend* at the
moment for new user...I feel(after reading through everything). In core-java
, fewer classes aim for extension by user. They rather are end product to be
used, to be composed of.
The best way still for wicket is *to implement generics
be surprised if I explicitly call one
of these methods on more than about 20% of my Wicket component
instances.
So for me, it's not the verbosity of generics that is the problem. When
the syntax is helping you avoid a cast somewhere else, it's worth it.
What bothers me is that 80% of time (for me
the best. But I have already upgraded all of my
applications to use 1.4, and there wouldn't be any happily about it to
back it out and stop using generics for me. They are too valuable to lose.
I have been using 1.4 with generics since before M1 was released, with
nearly half a dozen deployed
02, 2008 11:53 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
James Carman wrote:
I'm adding a Gotchas section now.
Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really
about
generics in general
to a type, eg
when you call getmodelobject() or getmodel() on the component. a big
percentage of the time you bind the model to a property - like in form
components, or push in a model once and never access it again - like
in dropdownchoice choices model, generics offer you no benefit in
these two cases
IMHO we should try to keep the topic on your take on generics, not on
your take on others take on generics. But while we're at it:
I've read over 100 emails on this thread, and nearly all of the ones
against keeping generics like they are currently implemented are from
people who do not fully
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Martin Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi Sebastiann,
just for clarifying my understanding of the vocabulary:
A_HomePage extends WebPage
and
B_HomePage extends WebPageVoid
are both non-generified java classes.
No the last one is generified..
The first one
I agree with the Class? extends Page with @SuppressWarnings in the
framework code. It makes it easier, and there's no drawback either way.
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Martin Funk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
1) Generifying* Wicket
[x] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because it works. Please improve the framework in functional details. Make it even easier to use. Make is less verbose. Keep the API stable.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[x] I might
everyone,
I feel bad that a vote thread has been converted to one of discussion...
At this moment wicket is *for *creating custom components. If these custom
component writing gets complicated we will not be able to appreciate
wicket
as much(as much as we do now).Generics will complicate
/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
*] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
using 1.4 and up.
* Note that we just went live with http://online.ddpoker.com/ on 1.4 trunk
using generics. I'd prefer not to backtrack, but will if that's what the
developers decide.
Having gone through a conversion of a brand new project
, since all my pages subclass my BasePage, all I had to do was change
*that* page to subclass PageVoid and voila, all my pages were proper.
I also created the following models to simply my life: DateModel,
IntegerModel, DoubleModel, etc. I did some fancier stuff with Generics,
including a decent
. The use of generics has greatly
cleaned up and improved the code for all these components.
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
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...
We should be able to use the untyped variants, but the explanations for why
that won't work directly was valid.
So on to you're A/B question. I don't think it matters much... The people
doing things inline are going to use that method anyway and generics won't
hurt them
% is complete noise...
verbousity might not be wicket's problem, but using a verbose api
sucks. generics fit for collections because there is never a case
where you would want a collection without putting/getting something
out of it.
-igor
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:48 PM, James Carman [EMAIL PROTECTED
-
From: atul singh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:25 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Hello everyone,
I feel bad that a vote thread has been converted to one of discussion
opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
A raw type is a parameterized type in which the type parameters are
not filled in, i.e., new HashMap() (instead of new HashMapString,
Integer()).
Just try to return
On Mon, 02 Jun 2008, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
i am willing to drop component model support if the following can be met:
component model support -- ?
certain constructors stay generified to document certain aspects, eg
dropdownchoice constructor should be generified.
support generification of
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:28 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:46PM -0400, Hoover, William wrote:
I got the point, but I take things as people state
So am I :)
I think that just like TDD generates a whole new structure to your code (IMO
a better one) that implementing generics at the start would have produced
something a bit different.
- Brill Pappin
-Original Message-
From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday
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 with Wicket
i guess my
:05 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
I agree with the Class? extends Page with @SuppressWarnings in the
framework code. It makes it easier, and there's no drawback either way.
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4
don't think it matters much... The people
doing things inline are going to use that method anyway and generics won't
hurt them, but the usefulness to people who write more extensive application
is likely more important (if its that simple it doesn't matter much, if its
complicated
you made a radical statement, just wandering if there is anything
concrete you can back it up with. in my head the generics have very
little effect on the actual api design so i am wandering what prompted
you to say that wicket api needs a radical refactoring in order to
support generics - which
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
i guess my question is: if you have a list and you are never going to put
anything inside it, do
Hi all,
We have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some
discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular
Wicket users as we can. Please help us get an impression of what our
users think about
have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some
discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular
Wicket users as we can. Please help us get an impression of what our
users think about the issue
scan this user forum, you will realize that there is no high demand for
generics in wicket from users. I am yet to see one user or thread here of
wicket users screeming out for generics addition. I think users has been
doing just fine without it at least speaking for myself.
Anything more than
convert/ start
using 1.4 and up.
On 6/1/08, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
We have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some
discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Ayodeji Aladejebi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
scan this user forum, you will realize that there is no high demand for
generics in wicket from users. I am yet to see one user or thread here of
wicket users screeming out for generics addition. I think users has been
on 4.1
Were we work we still with the 1.3.3 mostly because they're afraid of the
migration.
When I changed to 1.4 in my personal try-out project, I got really confused
and annoyed with the need to add generics to my page, panel etc.
I think that the Model should be generified. It seems logical to me
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
2) How strongly do you
you feel about your choice above?
[X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
I'm content with the way things work now, but adding generics to models
would be helpful. It's unclear if adding generics to components would be
worth the complexity.
1) [ X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
2) [ X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
AT
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1) Generifying* Wicket
[ ] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give
generics to components
or just in limited fashion). But I'll think most people would want to go for
number 2. (adding generics in limited fashion). I would still upgrade to 1.4
Regards
Vyas, Anirudh
win.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi all,
We have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some
discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular
discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular
Wicket users as we can. Please help us get an impression of what our
users think about the issue by completing this simple survey. Note
that it is not a vote
feel about your choice above?
[X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
*Reason* for new people who want to start with wicket the way generics are now
may not be very clear and harder to grasp at the beginning. Most of the people
here is long time in the business, so it may
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 CompoundPropertyModelSomeClass. Most basic Wicket
components are generic: things like Label need a type
;-) 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 CompoundPropertyModelSomeClass. Most basic Wicket
components are generic: things like Label need a type parameter specifying
the model (which by the way
: TestTest. The
user here declares he's using generics, but then inserts a raw type of a
known generic type - a situation that should not happen.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
since then the thread
here
declares he's using generics, but then inserts a raw type of a
known generic
type - a situation that should not happen.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
since then the thread has evolved
? generic type, and that is a case where there
is on the user side an incorrect generic type: TestTest. The user here
declares he's using generics, but then inserts a raw type of a known generic
type - a situation that should not happen.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2
using the ? extends Test? generic type, and that is a case where
there
is on the user side an incorrect generic type: TestTest. The user here
declares he's using generics, but then inserts a raw type of a known
generic
type - a situation that should not happen.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
taken from SUN's generic tutorial:
http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5/pdf/generics-tutorial.pdf
end of page 8
snip :::
interface CollectionE
{
public boolean containsAll(Collection? c);
public boolean addAll(Collection? extends E c);
}
We could have used generic methods here instead:
interface
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.. including none generics
No, that's not correct. For example, List? is much more restrictive
.
On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
generics when generics are wanted is
because Sun wants to be able to make it *required* (in a future release)
to use generics where generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I
think in the real world they wouldn't dare to do this because it would
piss off so many users and break so much stuff
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 generics are wanted; at least, so I read... I think in
the real world they wouldn't dare to do
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 WebMarkupContainerlt;Void
public class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void
public class StringLabel extends Labellt;String
public class IntegerModel
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 WebMarkupContainerlt;Void public
class VoidPanel extends Panellt;Void public class StringLabel
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 5/14/08
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 that scopes to a particular generic type)
3) Let's face it, Generics clutters up your code and makes
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 makes it harder
to
read. This simplifies things a bit.
In answer to Martijn's assumption (in a separate post
, 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 that scopes to a particular generic type)
3) Let's face it, Generics
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.. including none generics
johan
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik [EMAIL
your work and Wicket, so I do my best, to make it better ;)
Stefan Simik
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
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 that scopes to a particular generic type)
3) Let's face it, Generics clutters up your code
;)
Stefan Simik
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
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
to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have a warning there.
The problem
that means we have to change our sig to ? extends Component?
but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
generics suck.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
we have
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes then all the call
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
I actually like having the generics better than not having it. In both
cases sometimes
to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
yes then all the call to that method must
:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
yes then all the call
there
johan
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to
be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
-igor
On Wed, May 14
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
I actually
well, maybe you get used to warnings, i tend to do something about
them and clean up my code. i do not want to turn this warning off,
because as you said yourself it is a very useful warning, if i turn it
off i might as well not be using generics...
-igor
On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Peter
that's exactly what I am saying...
It always pisses me off to see developers checking in code
that delivers like 50-100 warnings and they don't care.
warnings are a good thing.
not so sure about generics (just kidding :-)
Am 14.05.2008 um 22:41 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
well, maybe you get
401 - 500 of 635 matches
Mail list logo
