Problem is setDefaultModelObject(). If you have setModelObject(Object o) you can not override it in subclass and restrict the parameter.
-Matej On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 8:58 PM, tetsuo<[email protected]> wrote: > 'IModel<?> getModel()' instead of 'Object getModel()', and 'IModel<T> > getModel()' instead of 'T getModel()', sorry. > > And sorry for flooding the mailing list, this is the last one, I promise :) > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:54 PM, tetsuo <[email protected]> wrote: > >> What if Component was not generified, and had an 'Object getModel()' method >> instead of 'Object getDefaultModel()', and the components that do benefit >> from generics, simply override the method to return 'T' (then the component >> class would have a <T> type parameter)? The compiler accepts this just fine. >> >> Tetsuo >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 3:48 PM, tetsuo <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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. >>>>> > >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
