well, apparently johan ran into a situation where component<?> is too restrictive...
-igor On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> since then the thread has evolved into whether or not we should use <? >> extends Component> or <? extends Component<?>> >> >> -igor > > I don't understand how that changes any of my points. The first is incorrect > (from a generics point of view) since you're referencing an unparameterized > generic type. > > So the second gives warnings only in code that is not properly generified... > > Regards, > Sebastiaan > > >> >> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Igor Vaynberg wrote: >>> >>>> i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that >>>> if we scope something as Class<? extends Component> then even though >>>> you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning >>>> because we did not scope the class as Class<? extends Component<?>>. >>>> >>>> on the other hand if we do scope it as Class<? extends Component<?>> >>>> then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function. >>> >>> But that's exactly the point isn't it? If you're using generics then you >>> shouldn't be using raw Components anymore... >>> >>>> so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected >>>> generics to be better. >>> >>> Well they definitely could have been better (erasure is terrible if you >>> ask >>> me), but I don't see what's wrong in this case. It warns you if you >>> should >>> be using a parameterized type but you don't. >>> >>>>> And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority >>>>> wants >>>>> the generics... >>>> >>>> that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of >>>> generics, not on the implementation. >>> >>> That's true, but I wonder if this issue would change the vote much. I >>> don't >>> really understand why it's an issue, because you can use generified >>> Components always: Component<Object> if you don't want to constrain the >>> model object, and Component<Void> if you don't need a model. >>> >>> The question that started the thread was about StringResourceModel which >>> was >>> not yet generified, and in that case, the warning seems to me to be >>> perfectly ok: it just says StringResourceModel should be generified. It's >>> not a release yet, so that some users who use the current snapshot run >>> into >>> these kind of warnings which cannot be removed seems to be fine to me... >>> >>> Regards, >>> Sebastiaan >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
