Heh. It's not just about being anal... I feel like those warnings somehow
slow the IDE down... plus it makes the code harder to read b/c of
highlighting. But you don't want to turn it off because you'll forget about
them, and if you're using generics for other things, you will want to see
those warnings.
Give it some time, they'll iron out the API issues. They could do things
like:
public class Button
{
public static Button instance(String id) { return new Button(id); }
public static <T> Button<T> instance (String id, IModel<T> model) { return
new Button<T>(id, model);}
}
So then the API call would be:
component.add(Button.instance(id));
component.add(Button.instance(id, new MyStringModel()) ;
... etc.
Just one way to do it...
mnwicket wrote:
>
> I'm glad to see I'm not the only anal developer that hates to see warnings
> in my ide..:)
>
>
> Patrick Angeles wrote:
>>
>> How often do people give models to components like Buttons and Links?
>> Maybe the devs can consider alternate versions of these components that
>> aren't generic and don't take a model (or assume IModel<Object>).
>>
>> My code is littered with Link<Object> declarations just to get rid
>> of the compiler warnings :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Johan Compagner wrote:
>>>
>>> this is fine yes:
>>>
>>> TextField<String> tf = new TextField<String>(new
>>> ResourceModel<String>("key"));
>>>
>>> the tf.getModel() returns a Model<String> else it cant and
>>> getModelObject
>>> also returns a String.
>>>
>>> But i agree for a Button if you dont give a model to it it doesn't make
>>> sense
>>> But if you give a model it does make sense.
>>>
>>> But for a Textfield it makes sense that you generify it even without a
>>> model
>>> because it does inherit the model from its parent..
>>>
>>> so yes its a bit of a split what is nice and what you want to do.
>>>
>>> johan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 3:28 PM, mnwicket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks Igor....not sure if you really answered what I was getting at
>>>> though.
>>>> I understand generics however there are cases in wicket where I'm
>>>> wondering
>>>> what is best practices.
>>>>
>>>> ie, using your example, a TextField using a ResourceModel, which way
>>>> would
>>>> you go;
>>>>
>>>> TextField<String> tf = new TextField<String>(new
>>>> ResourceModel<String>("key"));
>>>>
>>>> or just
>>>>
>>>> TextField tf = new TextField(new ResourceModel<String>("key"));
>>>>
>>>> And what do you use as a generic with the following code block;
>>>>
>>>> class MyForm extends Form {
>>>>
>>>> public MyForm() {
>>>>
>>>> add(new AjaxButton('id', this));
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > generic type on Component represents the type of the modelobject that
>>>> > component will hold.
>>>> >
>>>> > eg TextField<Integer> tf=new TextField<Integer>(...);
>>>> > means that tf.getModelObject() is of type Integer
>>>> >
>>>> > -igor
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Mon, Apr 21, 2008 at 5:30 PM, mnwicket <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Ok, so I starting messing around with the new generics version of
>>>> >> wicket....and I guess I was a little confused as to how many
>>>> generics
>>>> >> there
>>>> >> are. Silly question is when people are doing development are they
>>>> >> turning
>>>> >> off all generic warnings in eclipse...that is if you are using
>>>> eclipse?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I only ask because I come across components like TextField that
>>>> takes
>>>> a
>>>> >> ResourceModel...I understand why the ResourceModel would use a
>>>> generic
>>>> >> but
>>>> >> in this case am I forced to put <String> on the TextField.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Another example is AjaxButton that is being added to a form, what
>>>> >> generic do
>>>> >> I use here? The forms object model type? What if the form doesn't
>>>> have
>>>> >> a
>>>> >> model, say it is using a ValueMap that is a global member of the
>>>> >> form...ie
>>>> >> I've seen this usage in some login example of wicket.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Just looking for some guidance here guys.
>>>> >> --
>>>> >> View this message in context:
>>>> >> http://www.nabble.com/1.4-Generics-tp16819308p16819308.html
>>>> >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> View this message in context:
>>>> http://www.nabble.com/1.4-Generics-tp16819308p16824264.html
>>>> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/1.4-Generics-tp16819308p16851313.html
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
