On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Carman wrote: >> >> I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now. > > Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really about > generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which > really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS). > > One of the gotcha's I think is the getHomePage() signature... > > public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> getHomePage(); > > This breaks raw types (you can't return raw home page). > > I don't see any way out of this one without making the getHomePage() > signature incorrect (i.e., you can't make it a generic method, which was > used to solve the problem where a method argument had the type Class<? > extends Page<?>>). >
So, add that to the wiki so that we can discuss it. > Regards, > Sebastiaan > > > > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> Sounds like a good idea... Are you going to create it? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On Behalf Of James Carman >>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:06 AM >>> To: users@wicket.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on >>> generics with Wicket >>> >>> Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* "gotchas" we >>> encounter and try to come up with a solution for them. My guess is that >>> we can do so. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> +1 >>>> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are >>>> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are >>>> that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity. >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> On Behalf Of James Carman >>>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM >>>> To: users@wicket.apache.org >>>> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on >>>> generics with Wicket >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see >>>>> anyone >>>>> having any particular objections against current state. I think >>>>> before >>>>> we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss >>>>> what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not >>>>> something >>>>> we can really do about) with current state. I use wicket with >>>>> generics >>>>> daily and I don't see any particular show stopper so far. >>>>> >>>> +1, I agree. I think this discussion might be counter-productive if >>>> folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting. >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> 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]
