Apart from the fact that this would be even more verbose than current generics approach this would probably also radically increase component memory footprint.
-Matej On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 7:03 AM, cowwoc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Have you considered moving from subclassing to composition in Wicket using > Callable<T>? > > Currently it is quite common for developers to subclass a component in order > to override isVisible() and other properties. I am proposing that instead > the component classes become final and properties may only be set using > setter methods. The setter methods would take Callable<T> instead of T, so > for example setVisible(boolean) would become setVisible(Callable<Boolean>) > > The benefit of this approach is that you could introduce static factory > methods to the Wicket components which would make them much easier to use in > their Generic form. You could then introduce various helper classes to > create Callable<T> for constant values, such as Callable.valueOf(true) would > return a Callable<Boolean> that always returns true. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17792488.html > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
