Hi Pedro,
>Why don't we make AbstractReadyOnlyModel the superinterface of IModel
IIRC Michael Mosmann tried to work on something similar but it never
quite worked out.
Do you want to work on a proposal?
Before you invest too much time into this: I'm pretty sure most devs
won't be in favor of doing another round of IModel refactoring in Wicket
8 because of semantics.
Regards
Sven
On 27.03.2017 01:39, Pedro Santos wrote:
-0
I see no good reason for IModel to extend from IDetachable. Users should be
able to add this interface at their will.
If IModel were a @FunctionalInterface, then you wouldn't need something like
a SupplierModel; you could just use a lambda directly:
IModel, as it's now, isn't a functional interface.
Then maybe just make IModel#setObject() default too ..
There's no default implementation for IModel#setObject(). The one that was
added is as much semantically wrong as to say IModel is a functional
interface.
Proposal:
Why don't we make AbstractReadyOnlyModel the superinterface of IModel
instead of to keep it as an abstract adaptor for IModel? So we would have a
semantically correct functional interface.
Pedro Santos
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 6:42 PM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>
wrote:
Ugh, right!
Then maybe just make IModel#setObject() default too ...
We will experiment! :)
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Michael Mosmann <[email protected]>
wrote:
.. @IReadOnlyModel: i hope, it will be easier to change then the last
time
i tried it. Watch out for component default model stuff...
:)
Am 6. Oktober 2015 22:54:37 MESZ, schrieb Martin Grigorov <
[email protected]>:
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 10:43 PM, Andrew Geery <[email protected]>
wrote:
If IModel were a @FunctionalInterface, then you wouldn't need
something
like a SupplierModel; you could just use a lambda directly:
new Label("label", () -> "The current time is " + LocalDate.now());
This looks good indeed.
It seems we will add IReadOnlyModel soon!
And since IModel is Serializable, the lambda will be too, without
having to
have an artificial interface that is both Serializable & a Supplier.
Thanks
Andrew
On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 4:21 PM, Martin Grigorov
<[email protected]>
wrote:
Same for IRequestHandler#detach()
Martin Grigorov
Wicket Training and Consulting
https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 10:42 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
[email protected]> wrote:
Should we use an empty default implementation for IModel#detach?
public class IModel<T> extends IDetachable
{
...
@Override
default void detach()
{
}
}
This won't break existing applications, but might make it a bit
easier
on the eyes to implement IModel directly.
I'm not in favor of applying the default method to IDetachable,
because that would defeat the interface's purpose IMO.
WDYT?
Martijn
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail
gesendet.
