>
>
> IDataProvider<Object> my = new IDataProvider<Object>()
> >
>
> i must admin - that's a creative argument... drop generics for usecases
> like this.
yeah i did find it a great idea also ;)
>
>
> what is the point of differentiating between iterator + model when the
> iterator actually provides the type? to get it wrapped with Model() ??
>
> given
>
> public interface IDataProvider<T>
> extends IDetachable
> {
> java.util.Iterator<T> iterator(int first, int count);
> IModel<T> model(java.lang.Object object);
> int size();
> }
>
> you always get type T for object as argument from model, don't you?
yes i dont know currently why model(Object) is just Object as far as i know
it will be always the T of the Iterator..
Have to check this out.
>
>
> if i'd follow your example, i wouldn't gain anything of generics with
> wicket.
thats true. But it wont be so verbose for everybody that uses the Iterator
for just 1 type
This is really the first day that i did encounter this that the Iterator
returns something different then model returns in all the time that
IDataprovider exists...
So yes currently my vote is stil that you just use Object
But i dont know how that works out completely for the things you use
IDataprovider again..
johan
