On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Sven Meier <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> 1)
> we've been twiddling with read-only models for some time now, and IIRC it
> never quite worked out.
> I don't see much benefit in IReadOnlyModel as it is proposed now - perhaps
> I'm missing the point though.
>
> How about adding another default to IModel:
>
>     default void setObject(final T object) {
>         throw new UnsupportedOperationException();
>     }
>
> This way we can get rid of AbstractReadOnlyModel too :P
>

A minor thing that bothers me here is that currently AROM#setObject() is
final, so subclasses are effectively read only too.
By moving this method to IModel we cannot make any guarantees.
But I guess it will always be used as an anonymous inner class, as AROM is
used now. If someone wants to have children then (s)he will have to create
a custom class and there (s)he can make it 'final'.
Let's do it!


>
> 2)
> I don't see a need for this.
>
> Have fun
> Sven
>
>
> how about adding a
>
>
> On 11.03.2016 22:54, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> At "lambdas" [1] branch there are two more features:
>>
>> 1) IReadOnlyModel by Michael Mossman
>>
>> At the moment there are AbstractReadOnlyModel and SupplierModel (extends
>> from AROM).
>> Initially while MM suggested IROM I thought it will be a parent interface
>> of IModel but it is the opposite - IROM extends from IModel.
>> I don't see need of IROM. The classes look enough to me.
>>
>> 2) stream based iteration of container's children by Andrea Del Bene
>> I have said my opinion before - the visitor approach is faster than the
>> stream based one.
>> In addition we have to remove the deprecated
>> org.apache.wicket.util.iterator.AbstractHierarchyIterator and its related
>> classes because it fails with StackoverflowError when used in a page with
>> bigger component tree.
>> So I don't see a reason for this feature.
>>
>> Your option on them ?
>>
>> 1. https://github.com/apache/wicket/compare/lambdas
>>
>> Martin Grigorov
>> Wicket Training and Consulting
>> https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to