like matej already told you There is no default "slot" or field.. A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.
johan On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice > automatic detachment for fields. > > -igor > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the > >> component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally > >> out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the > >> two types via generics. > > > > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently > > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'. > > > > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas > > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit > > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very > > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is > > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and > > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally > > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is > > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-) > > > > 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] > >
