You will wait a long time for an example generated from "the API would be different" in such and such a case, based on an opinion.
If your really all that interested you could start from scratch using generics and see what came out. Let me know if you do, because I'd be interested to see if my opinion held any merit. However, if your interested in why I said that in the first place, then I can explain that. I don't know if you have every done true TDD (most people can't or think they can), but it actually changes your code and the way you write it. Starting with 2 users of your code makes a significant impact on what it looks like in the end. I applied the same thoughts to using generics from the start, and realized the API would likely be a bit different. Exactly how much, I wouldn't presume to guess. - Brill Pappin -----Original Message----- From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 11:03 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket sorry, still waiting for an example here... -igor On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Brill Pappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Actually, i did not say "... say that wicket api needs a radical > refactoring in order to support generics" what I actually said was "I > think that if Wicket had been written with generics from the > beginning, the API would be different". > > No "radical refactoring required" was mentioned :) > > Big difference... It would be WAY too much work to rewrite it now, and > I think your right that it can be implemented fairly well without too > much impact on the users. > > - Brill Pappin > > -----Original Message----- > From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 12:21 AM > To: users@wicket.apache.org > Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on > generics with Wicket > > you made a radical statement, just wandering if there is anything > concrete you can back it up with. in my head the generics have very > little effect on the actual api design so i am wandering what prompted > you to say that wicket api needs a radical refactoring in order to > support generics - which essentially are little more then metadata. > > -igor > > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:50 PM, Brill Pappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> So am I :) >> >> I think that just like TDD generates a whole new structure to your >> code (IMO a better one) that implementing generics at the start would >> have produced something a bit different. >> >> - Brill Pappin >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:42 PM >> To: users@wicket.apache.org >> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on >> generics with Wicket >> >> im really curious to hear what these changes would be... >> >> -igor >> >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Brill Pappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> I think... >>> >>> We should be able to use the untyped variants, but the explanations >>> for why that won't work directly was valid. >>> >>> So on to you're A/B question. I don't think it matters much... The >>> people doing things "inline" are going to use that method anyway and >>> generics won't hurt them, but the usefulness to people who write >>> more extensive application is likely more important (if its that >>> simple it doesn't matter much, if its complicated then it is and can be used). >>> >>> >>> Allow me to digress. >>> I think that if Wicket had been written with generics from the >>> beginning, the API would be different... And that is the root of the >> problem. >>> I think that maybe a concerted refactoring effort *must* allow the >>> API to change (call it wicket 2.0 for all of us old struts users) in >>> order for things to work out properly. >>> I don't actually think that heavy a refactoring would be such a bad >>> thing. I love what Wicket has done, but I think it could be less >>> "black-boxy" as well. >>> >>> - Brill >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Stefan Lindner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:13 PM >>> To: users@wicket.apache.org >>> Subject: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take >>> on generics with Wicket >>> >>> Brill Pappin wrote >>>>I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward* generics. >>>>Frankly I can't even see why its an issue at all, the language has >>> evolved and uses them... Why would Wicket not also use them its >>> inline with >>>>the current state of the language? >>>> >>>>There is no reason that people who can't get their heads around >>> Generics can't use the older releases that don't include it, but IMO >>> any java >developer who doesn't get generics yet better make some >>> time to learn, because like it or not, they *will* be dealing with them. >>> >>> I agree totally with you. My expericence with Generics over the last >>> two years was that any project that was adopted to generics had much >>> less errors afterwards. >>> >>> But the main problem in this discussion seems to be that there are >>> two very different sorts of Web Applications that are developed with >>> wicket and both may have predecessors that are non generic. >>> >>> Type A: A Web applicatons that make heavy use of Models, like >>> classic desktop allications that are ported to the web. I think the >>> programmers of such applications like Generics becaus they help them >>> to avoid erros and the current wicket generic implementation leads >>> to a strong typed application that needs a good object model (and a >>> good >> database design). >>> If you port an exisitng wicket application with no generic to wicket >>> 1.4 you might discover some unclear object model problems in your >>> exisitng code. And it's always easier to point to wicket's generics >>> than to blame your own code >>> :-) >>> >>> Type B: A Web Application with more static content, only some date >>> (like user logins, user profile data). In this case it's clear that >>> some people say "why should I always tyle 'Link<Void>', none of my >>> links has a Model, just about 10% of my Components have a Model". >>> But why dont't they write their own wrapper e.g. MyVoidLink extends >>> Link<Void>? I remember a dicsusson about such Components some weeks ago. >>> >>> >>> What do you think about it? Would it help users of Type B to have >>> VoidComponents? >>> >>> Stefan >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
