how do users get in this situation a warning?
if we as a framework say method(RawType type)
then why would that give a warning in the caller method?
We just say we accept raw type 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, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
> > cant be raw
> >
> > i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it
> > should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the <?>
> and
> > then
> > supresswarning?
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my
> class:
> >>
> >> public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class< ? extends Component>
> >> componentClass)
> >>
> >> i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
> >> Component<T> should be parameterized
> >>
> >> so 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 a warning there.
> >> > The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
> >> > IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
> >> > generified or not.
> >> > In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
> >> > With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
> >> > method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
> >> > none generfied components..
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause
> a
> >> >> warning in user's code?
> >> >>
> >> >> also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will
> be
> >> >> annoying
> >> >>
> >> >> -igor
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner <
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing
> it
> >> >> > enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying.
> >> Not
> >> >> > to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
> >> >> > things....
> >> >> >
> >> >> > So or we in wicket dont use <?> any where and have supress warning
> >> >> > everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my
> >> eyes
> >> >> > restricted to much.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > 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
> 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
> >> >> > > than a raw List (which is a List<Object>). To a raw list you can
> >> add an
> >> >> > > instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But
> in
> >> >> > > List<?> the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type
> there,
> >> >> i.e.,
> >> >> > > it could be a List<Integer>. But you can't add a new Object() to
> a
> >> >> > > List<Integer>!
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thus MarkupContainer<?> means "MarkupContainer parameterized by
> >> some
> >> >> > > unknown type", and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by
> Object,
> >> which
> >> >> > > is what the raw type means.
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Regards,
> >> >> > > Sebastiaan
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > > johan
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> > > > wrote:
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > > >> I have one idea,
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of
> AjaxPagingNavigator
> >> is
> >> >> > > >> PagingNavigator,
> >> >> > > >> which has parent Panel ---> that is not parameterized.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
> >> >> > > >> WebMarkupContainer ---> that is not parameterized.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> ? could this be the reason ?
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >> Stefan Simik wrote:
> >> >> > > >>> Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>> One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
> >> >> > > >>> MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>> Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I
> add a
> >> >> simple
> >> >> > > >>> ListView
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > >>> ListView<Integer> menu = new ListView<Integer>("id",
> numbers){
> >> >> > > >>> //....populate metods
> >> >> > > >>> }
> >> >> > > >>> add(menu); //warning here
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>> The warning says:
> >> >> > > >>> "Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the
> raw
> >> type
> >> >> > > >>> MarkupContainer.
> >> >> > > >>> References to generic type MarkupContainer<T> should be
> >> >> parameterized"
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>> I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because
> ListView
> >> self
> >> >> is
> >> >> > > >>> parameterized.
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >>>
> >> >> > > >> --
> >> >> > > >> View this message in context:
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > >
> >> >>
> >>
> http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.html
> >> >> > > >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > > >> For additional commands, e-mail:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >>
> >> >> > > >
> >> >> > >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
