Hi Sebastiann, just for clarifying my understanding of the vocabulary:
A_HomePage extends WebPage and B_HomePage extends WebPage<Void> are both non-generified java classes. It is just that A_HomePage extends the raw type of the generic type WebPage<T> whereas B_HomePage extends the parameterized type, with type parameter 'Void' of the generic type WebPage<T> So if I get it right it is not the generification of the HomePage, that makes the difference but its weather it is derived of a parameterized type. Esp. if the signature of 'public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> getHomePage();' stays that way the HomePage can't be generified. Can someone pleas elaborate on this? mf 2008/6/2 Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > A raw type is a parameterized type in which the type parameters are not > filled in, i.e., new HashMap() (instead of new HashMap<String, Integer>()). > > Just try to return one of your old (non-generified) HomePage.class classes > (i.e., HomePage extends WebPage instead of HomePage extends WebPage<Void>) > in your WebApplication's getHomePage() method, and you will see that it does > not compile. > > Regards, > Sebastiaan > > > Brill Pappin wrote: > >> I'm likely missing something here, but why would you want to return >> something other than a *Page object? Wouldn't that cause some issues with >> the application? >> >> Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "raw type". >> >> - Brill Pappin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Sebastiaan van Erk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June >> 02, 2008 11:53 AM >> To: users@wicket.apache.org >> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on >> generics with Wicket >> >> 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<?>>). >> >> 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] >> >>
