Can you elaborate? What (anti)pattern(s) make you think that generics in the components are bad design?
Besides the effort involved for the wicket developers, as a user I was leaning the opposite way... But maybe I missed something (not unusual). - Brill Pappin -----Original Message----- From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:23 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket Hi, > I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone > having any particular objections against current state. @matej_k: ugh - you should count again... if I counted right, most of the responses yet prefer 'Component' /not/ being touched by generics. > +1, I agree. I think this discussion might be counter-productive if > folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting. @jwcarman: There is an issue with generics on components which is leading into a big mess - and as far as I can see, many objections are especially on that topic! It might not be Wicket's fault, though, it might be a language problem (i.e. Java's to blame). But IMHO putting generics on Component is a bad design, since it per se touches all of Wicket's Components without urgent need. Boilerplate over and over. If I look at my components and libraries (and yes, i have tried out 1.4!) - I have at most 30% of my components containing a Model! Best regards, --- Jan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
