I've just read the explanation in a Tim's blog post comment. Oh, well,
generics definitely isn't easy to grasp...

I myself have observed that my (wicket) code is so much readable without
most generics declarations. Even when using components that do have models
(Textfield, for example) I didn't gain anything for adding the angle
brackets, since the models in general use reflection (PropertyModel,
CompoundPropertyModel, etc.), and don't make any use of the build-time
validation at all.

sigh...

Tetsuo



On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:35 PM, tetsuo <[email protected]> wrote:

> I understand the getModelObject() thing, but I not about the
> getDefaultModel(). Why is that?
>
> I've found an e-mail (
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/wicket-dev/200806.mbox/%[email protected]%3e)
> that states that it may be removed in 1.5.
>
> Why rename getModel to getDefaultModel just to take it out later?
>
> Not a critic, just trying to understand.
>
> Tetsuo
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Jeremy Thomerson <
> [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> A good overall read, but he also seemed to miss the reason we have
>> getModel**Object**.  He doesn't think that's necessary, but misses
>> that there is also getModel (without object) and the word does clarify
>> the difference.
>>
>> Anyway, a good read on overall API design, though.  I'd recommend it
>> to others with the caveat that I also disagree with his last part
>> about the rename.
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Thomerson
>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:22 AM, Martijn
>> Dashorst<[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> http://weblogs.java.net/blog/timboudreau/archive/2009/07/api_design_vs_a_1.html
>> >
>> > I guess he doesn't get why we did the rename. This reminds me that we
>> > *really* should improve our release docs before we finalize 1.4!!!
>> >
>> > Martijn
>> >
>> > --
>> > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>> > Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released
>> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.
>> >
>>
>
>

Reply via email to