I don't really think this is the right discussion we should be having now :)
Maybe 1.5 would be the right release for changes like that (if they
are justified, which i'm not really convinced it is. Anyway, as I said
before, storing (single) model in component has no overhead, so I
don't really see the point. Maybe we could make the methods protected
and components that actually use the default model would make them
public, dunno.
-Matej
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> soo
>
> interface IModelComponent<T>
> {
> public IModel<T> getModel()
> }
>
> and remove getModel/getModelObject methods from component itself?
>
> But then everybody that does use models have to implement it..
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:37 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Eelco Hillenius
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> it all depends, on how and what you're developing.
>> >
>> > Yeah. I actually use less and less models in the regular way nowadays.
>> > I use plenty of panels (the app I work on hardly uses separate pages)
>> > that nest other panels in them (typically detail views or dialogs)
>> > that reuse models of the parent. But indeed YMMV.
>> >
>> > Personally, I think the whole generics business exposes that the
>> > one-one relation between components and models is flawed. Without
>> > generics this isn't much of a problem, just the odd unused member and
>> > constructor, but as generics aren't as 'optional' it is all very in
>> > your face suddenly.
>> >
>> > I think on the longer term (post 1.4) we should re-think how models
>> > work in Wicket. See if we can find an elegant way to make this more
>> > flexible (I'm not in favor of the id based thing someone posted
>> > earlier btw) without breaking the whole world.
>> >
>>
>> We discussed this on ##wicket yesterday. I asked why we have models
>> on all components and someone pointed out that the main reason was
>> about the detach stuff I believe. But, couldn't that be solved by
>> having some components that implement something like IModelDriven (or
>> IModelBacked or whatever) and the detach logic could apply to only
>> those components? Also, someone has pointed out that when they create
>> their own components, they sometimes (such as in Palette) have
>> multiple "models" that they deal with. Allowing components to name
>> their models what they want would be nice, too.
>>
>> > FWIW, I'm still on the fence when it comes to whether we should go for
>> > a full or partial (models only) implementation of generics, though I'm
>> > leaning towards partial.
>> >
>> > Eelco
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > 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]
