getModelObject has (in 1.3 not in 2.0) really a better function then
getModel().getObject(XXXX)
because getModelObject knows what to put in the XXXX
for example this is very different:
Form form = new Form("form", new CompoundModel(xxx));
Textfield tf = new Textfield("tf");
form.add(tf);
now if i want the tf model object i have to do: tf.getModel().getObject(tf)
and not null!
But if i want to get the model object of the Form i have to insert null and
NOT the form!
So in 1.3 the only reliable way to really get the right value out of a model
is to use getModelObject of component..
But if we backport the model changes then that is done inside the model and
that is much much cleaner (i am +1 for backporting that to 1.3)
johan
On 3/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> no i am not pro for degenerifying it.
> I like the getModelObject()
What is so great about that method, and why don't you just directly
work with the objects the models work on? And why not
getModel().getObject?
> But i am curious about where people talk to
> is it just the model or are people go through componet.getModelObject()
?
I hope the first. getModelObject is a convenience method, and in some
case, like ListView's ListItem, it's the obvious thing to use.
However, think of all the textfields, dropdownlists and other form
components... no good using that method, imo. And what I never liked
about that method in the first place is that it pushes people in the
wrong direction. They should be thinking in models and the objects
they work on rather than 'values' of components. In the same fashion
I'm against setModelObject as well. If it were just up to me, I'd
remove it/ them (also because getModel().setObject can result in
something different then setModelObject).
> But then how would you generify only the models?
>
> for example if we completely remove it from the components
>
> then we have this?
>
> TextField tf = new Textfield(new Model<String>("test"));
>
> but how get we that model generified back in?
>
> tf.getModel() should return Model<String> then because if we also loose
that
> then we can completely scrap it and i am really -1 about that.
Yeah, hmmm. I didn't actually think about that yet. Looking at it,
what I propose seems impossible? :(
Eelco
