On Tue, 01 Jul 2008, Matej Knopp wrote: > There is one thing that helped me quite a lot when migration the > project I'm working out. I've created GenericPanel, > GenericWebMarkupContainer and GenericFragment classes. In most cases > the only change was renaming Panel<MyClass> to GenericPanel<MyClass>.
Maybe the names could be TypedPanel / ModelContainingPanel or something like that? Or maybe start with the original component name so that they would pop up more easily in the IDE, for example PanelWithType / PanelWithModel? > I was wondering, even though those classes were farily simple, we > might want to include them in Wicket anyway, for the sake of > consistency and convenience. I thought about this and I think that it might be better to not include them after all. In 1.5 it would be great to separate IModel and Component more thoroughly, getting rid of the defaultModel* accessors. Then it would make less sense to have the convenience classes with those model and modelObject accessors. In cases where two components share the same model, it would make sense to make the IModel field in each component final. Then setModel() does not make sense any more; all it could do would be throw an exception or be a confusing no-op. Likewise, sometimes you never do setModelObject() or getModelObject() from outside the class. Leaner APIs and less methods per objects are good things. Hence it's better to add methods as you need them, instead of providing a lot of convenience stuff that is only used a part of the time. Surely each Component subclass has anyway a lot of methods, and MarkupContainers even more, but you have got to start somewhere :) This is not a big deal though, either way is fine by me. Best wishes, Timo -- Timo Rantalaiho Reaktor Innovations Oy <URL: http://www.ri.fi/ > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
