if it works completely, that definitely belongs in our FAQ. nice trick.
igor.vaynberg wrote:
>
> hmm, interesting approach, thanks!
>
> -igor
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Peter Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I suggest using Link<Void> when not using a model (-> java.lang.Void)
>>
>>
>>
>> Am 23.04.2008 um 19:14 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > right. if you dont use the model inside a component then the generic
>> > is pretty useless, so either do not declare it and add @SupressWarning
>> > or simply Link. I often use Link with model object, so for me
>> > the generic makes sense. It is just too bad java doesnt have a
>> > shortcut to disable the generic without warnings so you can do Link<?>
>> > foo=new Link<?>(...)
>> >
>> > -igor
>> >
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Patrick Angeles
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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).
>> > >
>> > > My code is littered with Link 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-tp16819308p16834716.html
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/1.4-Generics-tp16819308p16924572.html
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
