Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
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, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS). One of the got

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "raw type". - Brill Pappin -Original Message- From: Sebastiaan van Erk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:53 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on gene

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread James Carman
ommitters. Not > everybody is a generics wizz you know, nor has the need to become one. > Most users want to just build web apps in a clean, self-documenting > API that doesn't put too much burden upon them - conceptually and > number of characters to type, read and understand. >

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jan Kriesten
Hi Sebastian, What about getModel()? If componennt is not generified I'm really wondering if the there is any benefit to generics at all... (I do really think it will spawn lots of questions on the list as well). what's the problem with getModel? If you specialize on a certain

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
don't know if I agree that it's a problem (I haven't seen anything better yet). What is a *good design* alternative, where only IModel is generified? getModelObject() returns Object? getModel returns IModel? IMHO the practical solution would be to leave generics from components

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Martijn Dashorst
Question is, how many of those users are core committers. Not everybody is a generics wizz you know, nor has the need to become one. Most users want to just build web apps in a clean, self-documenting API that doesn't put too much burden upon them - conceptually and number of characters to

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
Why can't this be done the way the java API does it, and allow people to use it or not as they want? Wicket is pretty clean in terms of the API, and there are interfaces for most things... So what's the problem with adding the generics to the interfaces? AFAIK this would allow them to

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Ryan Sonnek
> > 1) Generifying* Wicket > [x] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill > in your opinion here). > After seeing the impact that generics had on the codebase, I'm begining to feel that it's not worth the effort. Trying to *JUST* generify model

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jan Kriesten
scure workaround. Why do you think they have it? I think it's intent is very clear if you understand what void represents. The key point is that Java generics are not runtime generics ;o) See above, the point is having in there for especially nothing to gain - Just make reading harde

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
Brill Pappin wrote: Why can't this be done the way the java API does it, and allow people to use it or not as they want? Wicket is pretty clean in terms of the API, and there are interfaces for most things... So what's the problem with adding the generics to the interfaces? AFAIK

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
ebastiaan van Erk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 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

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
nance (and the cost of), despite effort on the initial development. One thing that means for me, is generics... Just like TDD, it reduces the issue count (among other things). - Brill Pappin -Original Message- From: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread James Carman
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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,

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Hoover, William
, 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 sa

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
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 To

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Charlie Dobbie
. > [ ] Should be avoided, I prefer 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 impro

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Alastair Maw
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 popul

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
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 w

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jan Kriesten
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

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Hoover, William
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 th

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Matej Knopp
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

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Hoover, William
Sent: Monday, June 02, 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(){ ... } } FormComponent exten

AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Stefan Lindner
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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Eelco Hillenius
> 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: [E

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jan Kriesten
hi william, Enlighten me with an example just like that: Component { public object getModelObject(){ ... } } FormComponent extends Component { public T getModelObject() { ... } } regards, --- jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread James Carman
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 HashMap()). > > Just try to return one of your old (non-generified) HomePage.class classes > (i.e

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
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 yo

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Eelco Hillenius
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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jan Kriesten
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 ce

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Stefan Jozsa
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 f

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Hoover, William
Wouldn't that infer that the component has to have generics, or am I missing something here? Something like... public abstract class Component, T> implements IClusterable, IConverterLocator { ... public final M getModel(){ ... } ...

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Eelco Hillenius
> 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. Eelc

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jan Kriesten
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 unsubscri

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread John Krasnay
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 -

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Zappaterrini, Larry
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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Bernard Niset
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 choic

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Al Maw
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, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0400, Hoover, William wrote: > > I rea

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Hoover, William
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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread atul singh
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 the

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Hoover, William
TECTED] On Behalf 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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Bernard Niset
te wicket as much(as much 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 *t

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread John Krasnay
e received no value for typing the generic syntax. I would 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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jeremy Thomerson
#x27;s 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 nea

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Martin Funk
pe". >> >> - Brill Pappin >> >> -Original Message- >> From: Sebastiaan van Erk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June >> 02, 2008 11:53 AM >> To: users@wicket.apache.org >> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is y

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Igor Vaynberg
object 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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Sven Meier
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 implem

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Johan Compagner
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 WebPage > are both non-generified java classes. No the last one is generified.. The first

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Jeremy Thomerson
I agree with the Class 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: > > > Hi Seba

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Ingo Adler
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 reth

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread atul singh
e will not be able to appreciate >> wicket >> as much(as much 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 pr

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Doug Donohoe
*] 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 br

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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" -- ? generifying component for the sake of having a generified model. -

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
riginal Message- 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 d

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
your 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 HashMap()). > > Ju

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Timo Rantalaiho
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 generificati

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
From: John Krasnay [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 thi

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
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

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Brill Pappin
02, 2008 6:05 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 with @SuppressWarnings in the framework code. It makes it easier, and there's no drawback either way. Jeremy On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Igor Vaynberg
d. > > 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, but the usefulness to people who write more extensive application > is likely more importan

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Igor Vaynberg
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

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Roberto Fasciolo
choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start using 1.4 and up. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17616380.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabbl

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Johan Compagner
e noise on the internet...) johan On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Marcus Mattila <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > generics for formcomponents do not make sense, most of the time they > > can figure out the type by inspecting their model. further, generics > > did not get r

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-02 Thread Marcus Mattila
> generics for formcomponents do not make sense, most of the time they > can figure out the type by inspecting their model. further, generics > did not get rid of the need to specify the type as a constructor > argument: new TextField("num", Integer.class) Agreed.

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
o. Currently, I am always passing models as parameter to the constructor of my custom components. Those parameters are always named according to the expected type they contain (e.g. fooModel if i expect an object of type Foo in there). Therefore, generics could jump in quite easily and I am lo

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Martin Funk
Johan Compagner wrote: 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 WebPage are both non-generified java classes. No the last one is ge

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Kent Tong
http://www.agileskills2.org/EWDW Axis2 tutorials freely available at http://www.agileskills2.org/DWSAA -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17618364.html Sent from the Wicket - User ma

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Hoover, William
ubject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket If only... if only we had this construct: class Component { } then all our problems with verbosity would be gone.. TextField tf = new TextField("id") // just default Void Also only declare it once:

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Gabor Szokoli
Hi, We haven't worked with 1.4 enough to form an opinion, but we'll definitely upgrade to it for the next project. On 6/3/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If only... if only > we had this construct: > > class Component If only we had type inference :-) Is this any nicer in scal

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Jan Kriesten
If only we had type inference :-) Is this any nicer in scala? in scala you wouldn't have to have the getModel/getModelObject within Component in the first place (you could use mixins for this purpose). --- Jan. - To unsub

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Edmund Urbani
Gabor Szokoli wrote: Hi, We haven't worked with 1.4 enough to form an opinion, but we'll definitely upgrade to it for the next project. On 6/3/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: If only... if only we had this construct: class Component If only we had type inference :-) Is this

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Gabor Szokoli
On 6/3/08, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > If only we had type inference :-) > > Is this any nicer in scala? > > > > in scala you wouldn't have to have the getModel/getModelObject within > Component in the first place (you could use mixins for this purpose). I was thinking about u

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Johan Compagner
> I like the default idea. > > -Original Message- > From: Johan Compagner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:15 AM > To: users@wicket.apache.org > Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on > generics with Wicket > >

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Johan Compagner
Type inference alone will not really help us To kill the verbosity on components that are not used with models we need something like johan On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:34 PM, Gabor Szokoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > We haven't worked with 1.4 enough to form an opinion, but we'll > defin

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread James Carman
and it isn't > really more comfortable. It's easier to do one or two casts than trying to > conform the generics Component structure. Especially since there are cases > with 1.4 generics (like StringResourceModel) which sometimes aren't > recognized as IModel (which of course

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread John Krasnay
intenance. > > So, forget the 20%, lets chew away some of that 80%. > > - Brill Pappin > If I create a custom component that needs a particular type of model, I would absolutely used a typed model. That's precisely where generics are useful. What I'm talking ab

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Jan Kriesten
Hi Gabor, I was thinking about using the existing wicket 1.4 API from scala, if that's any more comfortable. I tried to migrate a bigger project from 1.3 to 1.4 api - and it isn't really more comfortable. It's easier to do one or two casts than trying to conform the gen

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Hoover, William
-Original Message- From: Johan Compagner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:47 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket really? i still cant find information what will really be 1.7..

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Jan Kriesten
Hi James, Remember that 1.4 isn't done yet either. Perhaps these are just growing pains that the wicket team is going through (or perhaps it's not). it's not... ;-) No, really, I have invested quite some time to get comfortable with Components + Generics. And I came to

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Jonas
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 feel

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Stefan Simik
- the biggest win for me, is that I directly see, what I have or what should be in the model. I think, this is not worth the other problems. Living with generics is a little bit harder, than living with no generics. But I personally have no problem to live with it. If I should say decision, based

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Anders Peterson
Eelco Hillenius wrote: 1) Generifying* Wicket [x] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models [x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify Both are acceptable to me 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above? [x] I definitively won'

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Ryan McKinley
[ 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 feel about your cho

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Patrick Angeles
would be the equivalent of calling getModel((String)null)... I understand that this is a huge API break, with marginal value, but it does express the Model:Component relationship a lot more clearly. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Mike Comb
ng to move our app to m1. My experience has been that generics on components are absolutely not worth it for our use cases. I love generics on objects that directly hold data (IModel), but they are too verbose and not very useful for objects that are a few levels removed from the actual

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Ned Collyer
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. * I find anon inner classes can benefit a lot from generics. - This means both imodel and component - but I think both

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Brill Pappin
Actually, i did not say "... say that wicket api needs a radical refactoring in order to support generics" what I actually said was "I think that if Wicket had been written with generics from the beginning, the API would be different". No "radical refactoring requir

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Igor Vaynberg
sorry, still waiting for an example here... -igor On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Brill Pappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, i did not say "... say that wicket api needs a radical refactoring > in order to support generics" what I actually said was "I thin

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Brill Pappin
I guess I'm not understanding why people feel strongly against generics in the components. The model is going to use them for the data they contain, but the component would use them for the model it uses: MyModel mymodel = new MyModel(); MyComponent mycom = new MyComponent(); And that&

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Brill Pappin
You will wait a long time for an example generated from "the API would be different" in such and such a case, based on an opinion. If your really all that interested you could start from scratch using generics and see what came out. Let me know if you do, because I'd be interest

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Igor Vaynberg
nerated from "the API would be > different" in such and such a case, based on an opinion. > > If your really all that interested you could start from scratch using > generics and see what came out. > Let me know if you do, because I'd be interested to see if my opin

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Mike Comb
components don't have a model. We generally have a page containing one or more forms with a CompoundPropModel on each form. Having generics (particularly if they are just something like ) on every other object in the page is messy and confusing in my mind. Telling people to use suppr

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Eelco Hillenius
g DAOs or javabeans). So the verbosity doesn't > benefit us much. Also, the vast majority of our components don't have a > model. We generally have a page containing one or more forms with a > CompoundPropModel on each form. Having generics (particularly if they are > just so

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Igor Vaynberg
ty >> much exclusively (wrapping DAOs or javabeans). So the verbosity doesn't >> benefit us much. Also, the vast majority of our components don't have a >> model. We generally have a page containing one or more forms with a >> CompoundPropModel on each form. Havi

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Eelco Hillenius
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think we should have qualified this rfi with a requirement that > responders use 1.4 on a non-trivial project...these things only become > apparent from real-world day-to-day usage. anything else is pretty > much speculat

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 11:30 PM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> i think we should have qualified this rfi with a requirement that >> responders use 1.4 on a non-trivial project...these things only become >> a

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-03 Thread Jan Kriesten
i was of the "generify component and model" mind while i was generifying the framework, but after coding against it i began to see some of the ugliness and now my mind is almost changed. yep, day to day usage is the main point. i came to that conclusion as well when i was trying to migrate s

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-04 Thread Stefan Lindner
Igor Vaynberg wrote >i am wondering how many of the "keep as is in trunk" votes came from people who only imagined what their code would look like and havent >actually hit the numerous pain points those of us who did code gainst it hit. I'm one of the "keep as is in trunk" users and I use 1.4 tru

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

2008-06-04 Thread Jan Kriesten
hi stefan, Maybe the posts like "I do not use Models" or "Only 20% or our components have Models" come from the same background as my early wicket adoption. i don't think you use compoundpropertymodels very often, so your mileage may be very different how often you use component models. an

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >