If you call RequestCycle.get().setResponsePage() instead of just setResponsePage() what happens then?
I kind of like that Class<Page> there. It describes the api A few days ago something similar happened on the List with something else (wicket tester) if we also had there a Class<XXXX> the thing he tried would just never compile.. The question is must we do: Class<Page<?>> or just Page .. (and suppress a warning in wicket) Or just what we have now with the C which at least let all the raw types just be use able. johan On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:59 AM, Doug Donohoe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have a page: > > public class Search extends BasePage<Void> > > when I do this: > > setResponsePage(Search.class, p); > > I get an "Unchecked call to setResponsePage(Class<C>, PageParamters) as > a > member of raw type 'org.apache.wicket.Component'" > > Is this the new intended behavior (that I have to supress a warning each > time I call setResponsePage())? > > It isn't at all clear to me why this is better than simply defining the > class param as Class<?> as I suggested in the wiki page on this topic. > > I understand the old way of Class<? extends Page<?>> was correct but > sometimes led to ugly casting. I didn't mind that way. > > -Doug > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Another-generics-question-from-1.4-trunk-tp17580897p17580897.html > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
