On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Wayne Pope < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Maarten > > interesting idea thanks. I think the major issue is the null pointer > checking. > > for your: > public class Customer implements Serializable { > public final IModel<String> firstName = new Model<String>(); > public final IModel<String> lastName = new Model<String>(); > } > > do you wrap this around you (hibernate/other) pojo's or are this > additional > fields? This would be my domain class, so no extra pojo's needed. We don't use hibernate for now, but I would like to find out if I can create a hibernate UserType that can deal with these Property<String> properties. Did you know that bean-properties has its own ORM implementation: https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/orm.html ? I haven't tried it out yet though. About the null checking, I will see if I can avoid having nested null values in my proof-of-concept project. Regards, Maarten > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Maarten Bosteels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Wayne Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Francisco and I here where discussing whether we could figure a way of > > > having some form of static/compile time checking on our > > > (Compound)PropertyModels, as I'm a bit concerned long term about some > > nasty > > > runtime bugs that might slip through the testing coverage. Francisco > > found > > > this thread - I'm wondering what the status is? I had a look at: > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1327 > > > > > > and there doesn't look like any activity since Feb. Anyone been using > > this > > > or come up with a different solution? > > > > > > Ideally I think it would be just great if we had an eclipse plugin that > > > could just check for this (a bit like checkstyle or something) but a > > runtime > > > solution as proposed above seems really smart as well. However I'd > rather > > > keep is 100% java (ie not cglib) if possible. > > > > Hello, > > > > If you want something 100% java you could copde your domain models like > > this: > > > > public class Customer implements Serializable { > > public final IModel<String> firstName = new Model<String>(); > > public final IModel<String> lastName = new Model<String>(); > > } > > > > and use it like this: > > > > form.add(new TextField<String>("firstName", customer.firstName)); > > form.add(new TextField<String>("lastName", customer.lastName)); > > > > => no need to generate ugly getters/setters for all your properties > > => pure java > > => refactoring-safe > > => navigation + code-completion from IDE > > => you can still override setObject() and/or setObject() when needed > > > > In this example I have used wicket's IModel and Model but you could > > also use Property<String> from https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/ > > which has a lot of other benefits (a pity that the project is stalled a > > bit). > > > > Note that I haven't used this extensively but I sure do want to test > > it out in the near future.. > > > > One problem I see with this approach is when you need null-checking > > for nested properties: > > eg: new TextField<String>("city", customer.address.getObject().city ); > > > > Let me know what you think about it. > > > > Maarten > > > > > > > Thanks for any update if anyone knows anything! > > > Wayne > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Johan Compagner wrote: > > >> > > >> no i really dont like that > > >> then everywhere there code they need to do that, that is not an > option. > > >> and they have to program themselfs agains the proxy api. I dont want > > that > > >> developers also have the learn/do that > > >> This is something commons-proxy needs to do > > >> > > >> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM, James Carman < > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >>> Couldn't you also do: > > >>> > > >>> ProxyFactory pf = ...; > > >>> new SharedPropertyModel<Customer>(pf, customer); > > >>> > > >>> So, the client tells you what proxy factory implementation to use. > > >>> > > >>> On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > I see the JIRA, I'll go ahead and start the discussion on the dev > > list. > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > On 3/8/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > for wicket this is a feature it really should have > > >>> > > > now it defeats the purpose i have to make a decission in > > wicket > > >>> which > > >>> > > > factory i use > > >>> > > > Then i can just as well directly compile against cglib. > > >>> > > > I cant make the api that way that the developer has to give > > that > > >>> factory to > > >>> > > > use. That would be completely horrible, > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > You could always implement your own brand of discovery for your > > >>> > > project (perhaps by using the service discovery feature built > > into > > >>> the > > >>> > > jdk). > > >>> > > > > >>> > > I like the idea of splitting it (and doing it the slf4j way > > rather > > >>> > > than the JCL way). I have actually suggested that we start an > > >>> > > exploratory branch of JCL to make it work more like slf4j > (we've > > >>> been > > >>> > > talking about this since 2005). Anyway, if you file a JIRA > > issue, > > >>> > > I'll make sure we have a discussion with the other devs. For > > your > > >>> > > immediate purposes, commons-discovery is available also. > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > >>> > > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > View this message in context: > > > http://www.nabble.com/CompoundModel-based-on-proxies-tp15317807p20222077.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] > > > > >