Thanks! Ofcourse you're right! I was confused (because I used to templates in C++ - where compiler generates different type for each generic object instead of "cheating" like here). (a link for those who are interested in more details: http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0050 http://www.mindview.net/WebLog/log-0050 )
Unfortunately that means to me that I have to abandon my very elegant solution to handle different types binding. I have no clue how to do it in different way (Probably I will be forced to create my custom class manually for every possible type of value plus converters for all those types?). I would like to have automatic conversion of values to proper types (because I know concrete types only at runtime). For example I have table row of data with columns [Integer, String, Date, Integer] (those types are known only at runtime) and I would like to bind this row to appropriate form fields (form would be also generated in dynamic way basing on row contents). Or maybe there is a way to simulate C++ template behavior using reflections for example? Has anybody tried similar approach? Best Regards Maciej Pestka Andrew Robinson-5 wrote: > > Yes your code: > class ValueWrapper<T>{ > private T value; > public void setValue(T value){ > this.value = value; > } > public T getValue() { > return this.value; > } > } > > Actually looks like this to the JRE (I'm pretty sure): > class ValueWrapper{ > private Object value; > public void setValue(Object value){ > this.value = value; > } > public Object getValue() { > return this.value; > } > } > > Only the compiler knows what type of object your code wants. > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/value-binding---generics-tf2783210.html#a7767217 Sent from the MyFaces - Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.