But at the end, I want my model object back to do some business with it, so I could either store the CPM myself for later reference (but why would I want to do this ?) or retrieve it from the Form's model (typesafe, if possible). That's why a generified Form would be nice.
... roland svenmeier wrote: > > Just because you're using a CompoundPropertyModel on your Forms doesn't > mean you need it generified. > > Sven > > Roland Huss schrieb: >> >> igor.vaynberg wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jul 1, 2008 at 11:28 PM, Eelco Hillenius >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> thats my point. you work on fields of one object, true, but it does >>> not necessarily have to be the form's modelobject unless you use a >>> compound property model. >>> >>> >> >> The usage of a CompoundPropertyModel as a Form-model saved us quite some >> typing and it's IMO >> a very common use case. In fact, this it propbably the most relevant use >> case for a CPM anyway. >> So, I'm in favor of having a Form with Model (or at least a variation >> like a >> ModelForm<T> ...) >> >> ... roland >> > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/generics-tp18083910p18245100.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]
