[ ] IDataProvider
[x] Iterator> , drop model
[ ] Leave as is.
Leaving it as is just doesn't make sense as it doesn't support the use case
on hand.
Using IDataProvider is OK too. For those whose I == T, we can always
have a convenient base class:
abstract class ModelProvider implements IDataProv
[ ] IDataProvider
[ x ] Iterator> , drop model
[ ] Leave as is.
Maarten
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 1:52 AM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I would have a better idea if I would have had the chance to actually
> play with it, but here is mine:
>
> [ ] IDataProvider
> [ x ] Iterator> ,
I would have a better idea if I would have had the chance to actually
play with it, but here is mine:
[ ] IDataProvider
[ x ] Iterator> , drop model
[ ] Leave as is.
Looks most elegant to me, and it is immediately clear what T is for.
Also, I think that generics are bloody verbose anyway, so I'm
> VOTE:
>
> [ ] IDataProvider
> [ ] Iterator> , drop model
> [X] Leave as is.
>
>
-Matej
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> [ ] IDataProvider
> [ ] Iterator> , drop model
> [X] Leave as is.
- --
Philip A. Chapman
Desktop and Web Application Development:
Java, .NET, PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL
Linux, Windows 2000, Windows XP
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 3:42 AM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have a usecase where the current proposed generic Interface for
> IDataProvider with upcoming v1.4 of Wicket would break the implementation
> concept working with Wicket 1.3. The usecase needs different types f
On 4/24/08, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [ ] IDataProvider
> [ ] Iterator> , drop model
> [X] Leave as is.
I don't see the additional benefit of removing the model method. It
only breaks API for nothing much gained.
Martijn
[ ] IDataProvider
[X] Iterator> , drop model
[X] Leave as is.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ ] IDataProvider
[ X ] Iterator> , drop model
[ ] Leave as is.
Thijs
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ ] IDataProvider
[X] Iterator> , drop model
[X] Leave as is.
I dont care much between those 2.
But i definitely dont like option 1, because your example gives me exact
the feeling why i dont want that
It gives the wrong idea to peoples mind. If they would do what you do,
Integer list of pks, an
[ ] IDataProvider
[X] Iterator> , drop model
[ ] Leave as is.
Regards,
Sebastiaan
Jan Kriesten wrote:
Hi,
I have a usecase where the current proposed generic Interface for
IDataProvider with upcoming v1.4 of Wicket would break the
implementation concept working with Wicket 1.3. The usecase
Hi,
I have a usecase where the current proposed generic Interface for IDataProvider
with upcoming v1.4 of Wicket would break the implementation concept working with
Wicket 1.3. The usecase needs different types for iterator + model. Example and
explanation are found below the vote:
VOTE:
[
12 matches
Mail list logo
