Ok, I overlooked that IModel extends IDetachable but besides the detach
() method
- which would be a special model behaviour in my opinion - IModel does
have two
methods only:
T getObject();
void setObject(final T object);
Where's the benefit of using
new Component<MyBean>("xy", new Model<MyBean>(myBean))
and then access the actual model (object) by using getObject()/
setObject() instead of
new Component<MyBean>("xy", myBean)
and then having a field
T model;
which could be directly accessed? (or even wrapped if you want to
implement additional
stuff)
A user may add still addional behaviour by implementing special
interfaces like Detachable
or something. This approach looks more natural for me but I'm asking
more out of curiosity...
On Oct 5, 2009, at 18:32, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Robin Sander <robin.san...@gmx.net>
wrote:
Another question because someone mentioned it in this thread and I
asked
this question myself:
why do we need an empty interface for Model? Why can't a mere
String or any
serializable POJO be
used as a model? (than this discussion about the name would end
also...)
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. IModel is currently the
interface and is not an empty interface. And an instance of IModel
is a
data proxy / location service - not the actual data itself - which
is whay
any POJO can not be a model. The POJO is the model object.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
