inline... On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Anders Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Another (great) web application framework that I've used doesn't have > "component" at the root of the inheritance tree, but "element" - "component" > extends "element". The elements are the UI atoms, and components are > complete or partial pages. > > I think elements should be generified, but not components. > > As it is now Component is not generified, but further down you introduce > generics to some components that you feel benefit from it. I think you > should do it the other way around. Have a root - Element - that is > generified, and then have a Component class where you fix the type parameter > to something suitable. > > To me the elements - the basic building blocks - are closely related to > their models and converters, but complete or partial pages are not. > > > 1) I think Label should be generified the way TextField is. (It would be if > they both inherited from Element.)
what benefit does a generified label bring to the table? it always converts everything to a string... > 2) I think think the Model and Converter of TextField should be generified > with the same type parameter as TextField itself - the way it was in M2. > (This could be defined in Element.) the model of the textfield is generified with the same type as textfield. as far as converter goes, it doesnt make sense to generify. iconverter<t> getconverter(class clazz). if your textfield is <String> and something calls getconverter(integer.class) on your textfield, should it still return a string converter? -igor > > > /Anders > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
