1)
[ 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.
*Reason::* I think generifying data-structure/mod
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 IMo
[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] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily
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 be
[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.
*Reason* - Well, I haven't started working "hard" o
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 fee
> 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 strong
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 gi
[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.
I think generifying Components give more clarity (Don't blame Wicket for
Messed up Generic Nota
[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 choice doesn't
wow this has a pattern for sure doesn't it ? ;)
Rick
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Matthew Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [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
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 f
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 do you feel about your choice above?
[ ] Whatever
Didnt you encounter the big thread (at least 100 messages) where we
discussed/voted going to 1.4? (and cool down dev on 1.3)
On 6/1/08, 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 t
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
> 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.
> [X2] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only ge
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 y
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
> 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.
I had a production quality project with the old 2.0 branch (dow
> 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.
This is the only solution that makes sense, the other options a
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would prefer to have models and components generified, however if
> this makes the API too verbose or cumbersome to use then I prefer to
> fall back to only generified models. At one point someone suggested a
> wiki page ou
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 do you feel about your choice above?
[x] Whateve
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.
Verbose VS Clarity, Clarity wins hands down.
2) How strongly d
I agree with Antoine.
Guðmundur Bjarni
Antoine van Wel wrote:
>
>> 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
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
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 do you feel about your choice above?
[X] Whatever ch
[ 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 ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'
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.
Component generification
why are you contradicting yourself?
"To be honest I don't see the advantage of generic components, all I want is
to not have to do casting when I'm using models, .getModelObject() should
return the type that I put in, in a list view, if I give it a list of
strings I dont want to cast the listItem
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Should be avoided, definitly. All this generics stuff is ruining my
wicket experience.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/users%2C
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Should be avoided, definitly. All this generics stuff is ruining my
wicket experience.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/users%2C
ok maybe i misread this :
'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.'
but those 2 sentences seem
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 do you feel about your choice above?
[x] I definit
your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
ok maybe i misread this :
'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
ins
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM, richardwilko
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ok maybe i misread this :
>
> '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 ce
Ok you example doesnt work..
You will need to cast there
Then IModel only only helps describing the constructor. After that you loose
the generics or you have to ofcourse keep the models and dont work anymore
directly with the components
So if we only do IModel and not component
then this will ne
essage-
> From: richardwilko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:21 AM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
>
> ok maybe i misread this :
>
> '
I think its not quite that simple.
Certainly both sets of components should use generics (silly to have a
partial solution) but how its done is vital so that it doesn't become a huge
mess.
I'm one of the adopters of the M1 release and I've found it quite difficult
to keep things straight sometim
From: mozvip [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:13 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Should be avoided, definitly. All this generics stuff is ruining my
w
us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Goes to show you that people have a tendency to reject things that they do
not understand rather than put in the effort :o)
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 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 wro
+1
-Original Message-
From: Brill Pappin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:49 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward* gen
Carman
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is goin
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I
Hi Elco, hi Users,
first of all thanks a lot for trying generics in wicket in the first case.
I haven't really cared about em so far, too much. So thanks a lot for
the learning experience I'm going through right now.
[x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel bu
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 (except the verbosity of course, but that's not something
we can really do ab
om: Matej Knopp [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:46 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular o
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:44:59PM -0700, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
> 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
put in the effort :o)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: richardwilko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:21 AM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
>
Hi Elco, hi Users,
first of all thanks a lot for trying generics in wicket in the first case.
I haven't really cared about em so far, too much. So thanks a lot for
the learning experience I'm going through right now.
[x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel bu
Hi,
I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular objections against current state.
@matej_k:
ugh - you should count again... if I counted right, most of the responses yet
prefer 'Component' /not/ being touched by generics.
> +1, I agree. I
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> @jwcarman:
>
> There is an issue with generics on components which is leading into a big
> mess - and as far as I can see, many objections are especially on that
> topic! It might not be Wicket's fault, though, it might be a
nday, June 02, 2008 11:11 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Agreed. I don't see a problem with having to type Link or
Page instead of Link/Page. That's simply the way that generics
are implemented
lf Of James Carman
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
&g
Hi,
But IMHO putting generics on Component is a bad design, since it per se
touches all of Wicket's Components without urgent need.
I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled. What is a *good
design* alternative,
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
>> having any particular objections against current state.
>
> @matej_k:
>
> ugh - you should count again... if I counted right, most of the re
ehalf Of James Carman
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:06 AM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* "gotchas" we
> encou
Hi Matej,
Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on
day-to-day basis.
well, I did, and it really doesn't looked nice (and it doesn't work as it should
in the end, but that's another story).
The main point is (repeatedly) ignored by the people who are 'pro' gene
Agreed. I don't see a problem with having to type Link or
Page instead of Link/Page. That's simply the way that generics
are implemented in Java. Are there places in the API where an end
user would have to type something like Class>>? That way madness lies, however I haven't seen anything
like
PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:28 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure I like where t
Hi Sebastiaan,
I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled.
that's part of the problem, agreed.
What is a *good
design* alternative, where only IModel is generified? getModelObject()
returns Object? getModel ret
: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:23 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Hi,
> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
ar if you understand what void
represents. The key point is that Java generics are not runtime generics
;o)
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:37 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: wh
IL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:06 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* "gotchas&
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
Yes, the trick here is to not muddy up Wicket for the newcomers.
Wicket needs to be easy to learn and understand in order for it to be
adopted by the masses!
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Question is, how many of those users are core committers. Not
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 Component, you
Jan Kriesten wrote:
Hi Sebastiaan,
I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled.
that's part of the problem, agreed.
Kind of "late in the game" to do anything about that it seems though.
And I don't know if I ag
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 type, re
be ignored if the user didn't have a place
for them.
- Brill Pappin
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:46 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics w
>
> 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 models seems
like a half baked sol
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 components don't have a Model...
The use of Void is not an obscure
-
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:46 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Hi Sebastiaan,
I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
Wicket the com
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
1:47 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
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
:03 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
>>>> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
>>>> that convincing- esp
, 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
: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, 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 mod
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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 gi
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
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. Th
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
with somethin
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
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
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
> 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
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
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
: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
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
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 wron
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 and
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
public final T getModelObject(){
...
}
...
}
-Original Message-
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:03 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics wit
> 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
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
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 choic
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
1 - 100 of 234 matches
Mail list logo
