you have a point yes.
But i guess the size() and iterator are still Dao operations and not really
wicket related stuff.
Because i wicket we really only use the mode() call. The iterator/model
combination is really done only through 1 class i think
then just wrappes all the things directly from the iterator.
But i guess it was more for clarity. Without the generics you cant say that
the iterator has to return Models..
So the pre 1.4 the api doesn't describe itself if we would do that.
I guess thats the big reason, but when igor is a wake i guess he has also
something to say :)
johan
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:54 PM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> hi johan,
>
> thats true. But it wont be so verbose for everybody that uses the
> > Iterator
> > for just 1 type
> >
>
> well - the verbosity to add another type would be imho acceptable.
> generics
> _are_ verbose, that's the cost (though i'm not that affected using scala
> actually, the types are inferred by the compiler.
>
> 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..
> >
>
> if it should be like you say it'll be, why not just make IDataProvider
>
> public interface IDataProvider<T>
> extends IDetachable
> {
> java.util.Iterator<Model<T>> iterator(int first, int count);
> int size();
> }
>
> and drop the model completely? that would be consequent. (kidding)
>
>
> best regards, --- jan.
>
