i think something similar happend to me with Model.valueOf(Map), so i had to change it back to return Model instead of Model<?>
Gerolf On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 11:41 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > >
