I also agree with igor, just start a vote on userlist. I think in your usecase just use <Object> that works for you in 1.3, yes no generics then for those cases. But that just doesnt complicate things for 99% of all the other cases and the learning curve of the interface
On 4/24/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > my point was that generics do not always work even when well defined, > and sometimes you have to fallback on raw types. > > i look at this from the point of view of the framework developer: what > is the easiest/simplest/most intuitive for most users. to me that is > simply idataprovider<t>, i can look at it and immediately understand > what <t> is. as you can see your proposal of <a,b> already required > one explanation in this thread. > > so, from my point of view, you are asking me to complicate something > to support your usecase, which i consider uncommon. you see where i am > going with this? i cant justify it yet. i understand your usecase, but > i also see ways of working around the limitation that are not too > horrible, at least to me. > > that is why i suggested you start a vote/discussion on user list. you > dont have to convince me that your way is better, you just have to > convince me that the added complication is acceptable to our users. i > have no problem changing my mind. > > -igor > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Jan Kriesten > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > hi igor, > > > > > > > > > i dont think we are cutting anything out. i am sure i can still come > > > up with examples where generics do not work on component or model: > > > such as a model that returns different-typed objects based on some > > > condition. > > > > > > > that's actually a quite different case than this, since here there are no > > conditions to be evaluated. > > > > > > > > > in these cases you simply use the raw types and supress the > > > warning. why can you not do that for your particular usecase? > > > > > > > the point of using generics is to provide type safety and don't have to > > assume types using casts. in my case it's breaking a structure i set up > not > > to have to cast when using generics. i'll send you a pm example how that > > works for me. > > > > best regards, --- jan. > > > > > > >
