yes i also thought about some time ago.
But this is not really better... Now without you doing a cast in the code
(so that you know what you are doing)
you suddenly have a class cast exception at some point later on
class MyComp extends Component {
public MyComp() {
IModel<Integer> model = getModel();
Integer myInt = model.getObject(); // KABOOM
}
because this thing gives you really a false kind of protection.
This is really an abuse of generics if you ask me..
johan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Joni Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:44 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> > Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > > Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
> > > not. IModel<T> itself is rather contained.
> >
> > Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
> > @SuppressWarnings all over the place. Then just get rid of generics
> > completely...
>
> In which case would you need @SuppressWarnings? Consider for instance:
>
> interface IModel<T> {
> }
>
> class Component {
> private IModel<?> model;
>
> public <T> IModel<T> getModel() {
> return (IModel<T>) model;
> }
> }
>
> class MyComp extends Component {
> public MyComp() {
> IModel<Integer> model = getModel();
> }
> }
>
> This compiles and the only warning is within wicket code. There's an
> unsafe cast to IModel<T>. Of course this would mean that getModel and
> getModelObject could throw classcastexception. It's a tradeoff: simple
> and more conservative usage of generics vs. fully type safe but complex
> and verbose usage of generics.
>
> Joni
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
