I voted -1, but here is my opinion about the change proper. > public interface IModel<V> extends IDetachable > { > V getValue(); > void setValue(V value); > }
This would be for the better imo, though I don't hate the original getObject *that* much. It's just what you are used to and I think documentation on how models should be used is a lot more important. > we would also change getModelObject() to getValue() as well as any other > related methods like getModelObjectAsString() to getValueAsString() (or > valueAsString() if preferred). there might be naming conflicts somewhere or > other problems, but i don't know of any offhand. Tbh, I actually don't think Component#getValue is for the better. I think Component#getModelObject is way clearer than Component#getValue. In the end I think both value and object are ambiguous, and this should be fixed by documentation and examples. Btw, If there is *anything* I never liked about the whole model business, it is the fact that Component has methods to get the model value in the first place (getModelObject etc). The indirection that IModel provides is something to get used to. It is one of the places where we traded clarity and simplicity for flexibility. I think it'll be hard to grasp for newbies no matter the naming, so the better our documentation and examples are, the quicker they will be able to wrap their head around it. Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user