Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

> generics for formcomponents do not make sense, most of the time they > can figure out the type by inspecting their model. further, generics > did not get rid of the need to specify the type as a constructor > argument: new TextField("num", Integer.class) Agreed. +1 for NOT generifying everythin

Re: Use Spring with Wicket

Sorry to say but U did nothing in code I am asking fro steps... I am awarre of few like: 1. Change in web.xml for listener.. 2. make applicationContext.xml file 3. Now what? - Samit :confused: -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Use-Sp

Re: How to access properties files outside of Wicket components?

Look carefully. Your code sample does: Thread.currentThread().getContextClassLoader().getResourceAsStream("MyComponent.properties") Which loads it from the default package. I think you should do: MyComponent.class.getResourceAsStream("MyComponent.properties") Which loads it from the package

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

1) Generifying* Wicket [X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models and components are both generified. I care most about the improved static type checking generified models and components give Wicket. 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above? [X] Whatever

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

you made a radical statement, just wandering if there is anything concrete you can back it up with. in my head the generics have very little effect on the actual api design so i am wandering what prompted you to say that wicket api needs a radical refactoring in order to support generics - which es

Re: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

but there are plenty of cases where you will create a component with a model and never call getmodelobject or getmodel on it. -igor On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:48 PM, Brill Pappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I know your trying to make a point about extra work for no gain, however I > can't see why

Re: Wrap a ListView and it cannot be updated via AJAX ?

2008/6/3 Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > If you're hiding the container, try setting it to output a placeholder id > too. > Hmmm It still not works... :( In fact , there is no need to setOutputMarkupId(true) , because calling setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag(true) internally calls setOutputMarkup

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

So am I :) I think that just like TDD generates a whole new structure to your code (IMO a better one) that implementing generics at the start would have produced something a bit different. - Brill Pappin -Original Message- From: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June

RE: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I know your trying to make a point about extra work for no gain, however I can't see why I'd bother to create a list and never put anything inside it (maybe and edge case or two)... And I couldn't think of any case where I'm not going to use a component or model I add to a page... Why would I even

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Hold on there... Why would you suppress warnings? I think I must miss the point of it because I don't *ever* want an API to decide what warnings I should and shouldn't see. -Brill Pappin -Original Message- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

+1 Nicely put... But I would say that since I agree with you :) - Brill Pappin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeremy Thomerson Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:39 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opin

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

im really curious to hear what these changes would be... -igor On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Brill Pappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think... > > We should be able to use the untyped variants, but the explanations for why > that won't work directly was valid. > > So on to you're A/B quest

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Ahh... But there in lines the real point. What happens 2 years down the road when you need to modify that component? A) if its not typed then you hunt around and try and find out what it was... Maybe you do a println of the fqn... B) its typed... Your done. Even the time it takes to "discover" t

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I think that this has turned into a discussion is vital :) We can't all do the work and don't have the final say, but there is nothing like getting ideas out in the open like talking about them (even arguing about them). I'm glad you contributed your input! - Brill Pappin -Original Message-

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

+1 I think that's the right thing to do... No point making it so rigid. - Brill Pappin -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Carman Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:13 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I think... We should be able to use the untyped variants, but the explanations for why that won't work directly was valid. So on to you're A/B question. I don't think it matters much... The people doing things "inline" are going to use that method anyway and generics won't hurt them, but the

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:24 PM, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 02 Jun 2008, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> i am willing to drop component model support if the following can be met: > > "component model support" -- ? generifying component for the sake of having a generified model. -

Re: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

i guess my question is: if you have a list and you are never going to put anything inside it, do you think a generic type is still useful? there are plenty of usecases where component's default model slot is not used, so why do we have to generify it? even if the mix is 50/50 that means 50% is comp

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > i am willing to drop component model support if the following can be met: "component model support" -- ? > certain constructors stay generified to document certain aspects, eg > dropdownchoice constructor should be generified. > > support generificati

Re: continueToOriginalDestination goes to tomcat's index.jsp

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008, liny wrote: > 1. When I enter data into input field and key up, AjaxFormValidatingBehavior > doesn't work. It won't validate input field. What do you want to happen here? > 2. After input correct info in login page and manual because question 1, I > have to manual press subm

Re: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Basically, my feeling remains the same - generics are part of Java, so Java > programmers are going to have to get use to them. They are very valuable > when you need them. We just have to be careful that we implement

Re: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I think Stefan and Doug both summarize this well. One additional description of "type B" applications that seems to be appearing on this thread is apps that are able to get by with mostly string-property-name-based models. Like PropertyModel, CompoundPropertyModel, etc. On the other hand, you ha

Re: [ANNOUNCE] Apache Wicket 1.4 Milestone 2 is released

The 1.4-m2 java doc is posted at http://www.ddpoker.com/javadoc/index.html -Doug Frank Bille wrote: > > Help the Apache Wicket team to determine the future of your Wicket based > web > application development. We have released our second milestone release of > our Java 5 based web framework an

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

Okay, I figured it out - that was the old method - needs a type. Using a field specific converter solved my problem as I am now formatting the date the way I need to see it as a String. Cheers, Michael -Original Message- From: Michael Mehrle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

I'm trying to override: public IConverter getConverter(); but it's final - how is this usually done? This is way too difficult, IMHO... Michael -Original Message- From: Michael Mehrle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:42 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: RE:

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

Well, actually your previous approach might solve my Validator problem, and this way I could enforce specific conversion rules per field. I didn't know that I could do that - let me dig around and see if I can make this work. Michael -Original Message- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAI

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

Oh, sorry, yes, it's likely the validator, not the converter. Ignore my just sent email. Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com -- sent from a wireless device -Original Message- From: Michael Mehrle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:36 PM To: users@wicket.apache

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

Override getConverter on your text field. Return a new date converter that overrides getDateFormat and return the format you want for that. Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com -- sent from a wireless device -Original Message- From: Michael Mehrle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Mo

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

I'm actually now thinking that is merely a DateValidator.range problem. If there is a time I don't mind it being shown - it's the DateValidator.range that won't accept it. The other solution would be to remove the time from the model via the converter below. However, I have not seen a way to do th

Re: Wrap a ListView and it cannot be updated via AJAX ?

If you're hiding the container, try setting it to output a placeholder id too. /Gwyn On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:21 PM, smallufo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > I tried to export the listViewContainer with "getListViewContainer()" > and in the gmap2's ClickListener : onClick() : > target.addCom

Re: Wicket cheat sheet, solve your wicket problem fast?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> The "Add Attatchment" on the wiki is restricted to the Confluence >>> "wi

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

Actually, I just tried to enter various time formats but it refuses all of them (with/without seconds, PM, PST, etc.). Only a pure date works (e.g 3/3/2009). Michael -Original Message- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 3:20 PM To: users@wicket.a

Re: AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Stefan makes a good point. I have raised this as an example before. My site (online.ddpoker.com, just went live) is a mix of A and B. To make my code cleaner, I created several simple subclasses for cases where I don't use models. VoidPanel, VoidContainer (only a handful, really). Also, s

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

1) Generifying* Wicket [X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models and components are both generified. I care most about the improved static type checking generified models and components give Wicket. 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above? [X*] Whateve

RE: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

Yeah, I had a suspicion that this was related but I wasn't sure I wanted to switch on the time format for the entire site. For instance - some users might only type in the short date version - some others the long one. I'm not sure how to address this. Michael -Original Message- From: Jer

new wicket site live: online.ddpoker.com (+1 for generics)

Hi All: We launched the new http://online.ddpoker.com/ yesterday. It replaces an old JSP/JDBC site with wicket/spring/jpa/hibernate. The site is 100% bookmarkable. The site also uses the wicketstuff-annotations project that we contributed. One cool thing we did with the annotations/bookmarka

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Point!--but i thought it is intended to extract a survey kind of info(with explanation if one has one) Just that the information here is overflowing with untraceable debates On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:47 AM, Bernard Niset <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Atul, > Please read again the initial post

Re: Wrap a ListView and it cannot be updated via AJAX ?

Hi I tried to export the listViewContainer with "getListViewContainer()" and in the gmap2's ClickListener : onClick() : target.addComponent(panel); target.addComponent(panel.getListViewContainer()); But it's still not updated. 2008/6/3 greeklinux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Hello, > > I do not wo

Re: java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

It looks like because the DateConverter code uses DateFormat.getDateInstance(DateFormat.SHORT, locale);, if you dig into this method, it uses time style "FULL", which is documented like this: "3:30:42pm PST". Try using that for your date. If that works, than the problem is just that it expects a

Re: Wrap a ListView and it cannot be updated via AJAX ?

Hello, I do not work with wicket ajax so far...but I think you have to update the whole container. regards smallufo wrote: > > I have a WebPage , containing a gmap2 and a Panel with a ListView inside. > I added the panel to the gmap2's onClick(AjaxRequestTarget ...) , > So when user clicks th

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

1) Generifying* Wicket [x] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because it works. Please improve the framework in functional details. Make it even easier to use. Make is less verbose. Keep the API stable. 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above? [x] I might reth

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I agree with the Class with @SuppressWarnings in the framework code. It makes it easier, and there's no drawback either way. Jeremy On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Martin Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi Seba

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Martin Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Sebastiann, > > just for clarifying my understanding of the vocabulary: > > A_HomePage extends WebPage > and > B_HomePage extends WebPage > are both non-generified java classes. No the last one is generified.. The first

java.util.Date model accepting Date incl. time?

I have a text field that is backed by a java.util.Date model. When typing in a simple date (e.g. 4/1/2009) everything is fine. But when I type in a date including a time (e.g. 5/23/09 12:00 AM) I get a validation error: '5/23/09 12:00 AM' is not a valid Date. Obviously a date (unlike a Tim

RE: Timestamp -> java.util.Date convertion in Wicket

YES - we have lift off :-) You kick butt, Jeremy - thanks so much for sharing this and for helping so persistently. I owe you one... Michael -Original Message- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:00 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: T

RE: Timestamp -> java.util.Date convertion in Wicket

Okay, NOW we're getting somewhere :-) [DEBUG Application] I OVERRODE THIS CONVERTER: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Much better output now - I'll let you know if this actually works in my app. Michael -Original Message- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:

RE: Timestamp -> java.util.Date convertion in Wicket

Ayayay: import com.sun.jmx.snmp.Timestamp; LOL I'll change it and let you know what happens. BTW, you ARE good! Michael -Original Message- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:00 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Timestamp ->

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

IMHO we should try to keep the topic on "your take on generics", not on "your take on others take on generics". But while we're at it: >I've read over 100 emails on this thread, and nearly all of the ones against keeping generics like they are currently implemented are from people who do not f

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

after using 1.4 full time i am more and more coming around to this point of view also. disclaimer: terms like "vast majority" are based on my own coding experience... the fact is, it doesnt matter how often you use models in components, its how often you actually have to cast the model object to

Wicket-Security and Wicket 1.4

Is there any timeframe for the development of a version of Wicket-Security that is compatible with Wicket 1.4? I know Wicket 1.4 is still a moving target, but I am curious to know what the plan for Wicket-Security is. Thanks, Larry __ The information contained in this message is pro

Wrap a ListView and it cannot be updated via AJAX ?

I have a WebPage , containing a gmap2 and a Panel with a ListView inside. I added the panel to the gmap2's onClick(AjaxRequestTarget ...) , So when user clicks the gmap , the ListView (in the Panel) will be updated. It worked fine. Today , I want to add a "show/hide" link in the panel , to show/hi

Re: Timestamp -> java.util.Date convertion in Wicket

Very weird. There must be some other code interfering somewhere. In WebApplication (which I'm assuming you're overriding), it has this code: protected IConverterLocator newConverterLocator() { return new ConverterLocator(); } So, you should be using a ConverterLocator instan

Re: autocomplete show div while textfield is empty

Got it. It is being released in the new 1.4-m2 that came out today. Thanks T taygolf wrote: > > no one??? > > > > > > taygolf wrote: >> >> Hey guys. I have been playing with autocompletetextfield and I really >> like it now that the ie bug is fixed with the 1.4 milestone. The only >> que

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

My vote: X - Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models and components are both generified X - Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start using 1.4 and up. I have to modify that last sentence, though - because I will continue using Wicket, because it's the be

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Hi Sebastiann, just for clarifying my understanding of the vocabulary: A_HomePage extends WebPage and B_HomePage extends WebPage are both non-generified java classes. It is just that A_HomePage extends the raw type of the generic type WebPage whereas B_HomePage extends the parameterized type, w

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 03:05:46PM -0400, Hoover, William wrote: > I got the point, but I take things as people state them. It was stated > that 70% of the time models are not being used (such is the case for > Link). As you stated, they are being used indirectly. That is > different. If that is t

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Hi Atul, Please read again the initial post from Eelco. He explicitly wrote: "Note that it is not a vote; we only want to get an idea of what you think." and further away: "Thanks in advance for everyone participating, and pls feel free to explain yourself further beyond just answering these q

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I got the point, but I take things as people state them. It was stated that 70% of the time models are not being used (such is the case for Link). As you stated, they are being used indirectly. That is different. If that is the case then I agree that the percentage of components using model indirec

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Hello everyone, I feel bad that a vote thread has been converted to one of discussion... At this moment wicket is *for *creating custom components. If these custom component writing gets complicated we will not be able to appreciate wicket as much(as much as we do now).Generics will complicate the

Re: Wicket cheat sheet, solve your wicket problem fast?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> The "Add Attatchment" on the wiki is restricted to the Confluence >> "wicket-committers" group (which is probably out of sync with the real >> Wicket

Re: Wicket cheat sheet, solve your wicket problem fast?

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The "Add Attatchment" on the wiki is restricted to the Confluence > "wicket-committers" group (which is probably out of sync with the real > Wicket committers list). Also the "Add Diagram" button on this page? http://cwiki.

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I think you miss John's point, which is that when you use a CompoundPropertyModel for a component, all its children typically do not reference models explicitly. Thus you typically use an explicit model on < 30% of your components if you have a form-heavy web-app; the other components use the impl

RE: How to access properties files outside of Wicket components?

That's what I have been doing, mate ;-) I'm looking for a solution that allows me to load the properties file out of the same folder as my class or WEB-INF. Not working right now and I pretty much tried all approaches I could find online. Wicket does not offer a way to access resource bundles out

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Wow, last time I checked CompoundPropertyModel is a model ;o) -Original Message- From: John Krasnay [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 1:22 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket On Mon,

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I am currently using 1.4 M1 and here are my choices: 1) Generifying* Wicket [X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models and components are both generified. I care most about the improved static type checking generified models and components give Wicket. 2) How strongly

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Hi all, [X] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models for instance) than static type checking. [X] I might rethink upgrading if my choic

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 11:59:09AM -0400, Hoover, William wrote: > I read it, but I think most people will be using models more frequently > than 30% of the time. Personally, I use them 99% of the time. Really? Haven't you heard of CompoundPropertyModel? jk -

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:1) Generifying* Wicket [X] They, the core developers, knows better then me (everyday users doesn't have in-depth and extensive view on generification pro and cons. As usual, to find a good compromise may be _very_ tricky business). 2) How strongly do you f

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1) Generifying* Wicket > [X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models > and components are both generified. I care most about the improved > static type checking generified models and components gi

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

You really have to use it to appreciate the benefits. Quick glance will just be scary :) -Matej On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on >> day-to-day basis. > > Common, a quick glance and

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

> Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on > day-to-day basis. Common, a quick glance and comparing some of the code/ examples you see with the code you write now (with 1.2/ 1.3) is enough to get a good - and as far as I am concerned informed well enough - idea. Eelc

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Yes, property model (and compound friends) don't mix well with generics. With generics a type safe alternative is wanted (and a very good start is Matej and Johan's type-safe model implementation). Regards, Sebastiaan Jan Kriesten wrote: hi al, The second is almost certainly worth doing. Th

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

> IMHO storing a model in a Component is more a convenience than a > fundamental part of component-ness. This may be part of the reason that > genericizing Component is so contentious. I agree. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [E

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Then we are on the same page with one thing... some level in the component hierarchy would have to be generic. Your original example specified "T getModel()" - you must have meant "T getModelObject()" ;o) -Original Message- From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:45 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone > having any particular objections against current state. I think before > we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss > what's wron

Reminder: London Wicket event at Google UK on Wednesday

Hi folks, Quick reminder that we're hosting another London Wicket event *this Wednesday* at Google's London office. It's looking like it might well be the best one to date, with a bunch of really interesting stuff and some cracking talks. Lots of cool stuff is lined up: - *Richard Wilkinson

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

hi william, Enlighten me with an example just like that: Component { public object getModelObject(){ ... } } FormComponent extends Component { public T getModelObject() { ... } } regards, --- jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

hi sebastiaan, You could use Java's covariant return types to override getModel() to return a specific type. Which would mean that you would need to subclass to "simulate" generics (with a new subclass for each type). not really, you can do generify your components from a certain level and

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Enlighten me with an example -Original Message- From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:23 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket hi william, > Wouldn't that infer tha

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

hi al, The second is almost certainly worth doing. That said, I use PropertyModel more often than anything else, and that doesn't allow you to make any guarantees anyway. :-/ good point. :-) regards, --- jan. - To unsubscri

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

hi william, Wouldn't that infer that the component has to have generics, or am I missing something here? you miss something... getModel/getModelObject would have to be non-final and overriden by the specialized component (return types are covariant, so you can override object with somethin

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

You could use Java's covariant return types to override getModel() to return a specific type. Which would mean that you would need to subclass to "simulate" generics (with a new subclass for each type). Also, when using anonymous subclasses it becomes rather pointless and you'd be back to casti

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Wouldn't that infer that the component has to have generics, or am I missing something here? Something like... public abstract class Component, T> implements IClusterable, IConverterLocator { ... public final M getModel(){ ... } ... public f

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:54 PM, Martin Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There are quite some methods that don't return the component, > but its class. Maybe most prominently 'getHomePage()' in Application. > > This used to have the signature: > public abstract Class getHomePage(); > > And a popul

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A raw type is a parameterized type in which the type parameters are not > filled in, i.e., new HashMap() (instead of new HashMap()). > > Just try to return one of your old (non-generified) HomePage.class classes > (i.e

AW: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Brill Pappin wrote >I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward* generics. >Frankly I can't even see why its an issue at all, the language has evolved and uses them... Why would Wicket not also use them its inline with >the current state of the language? > >There is no reason that people

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

A raw type is a parameterized type in which the type parameters are not filled in, i.e., new HashMap() (instead of new HashMap()). Just try to return one of your old (non-generified) HomePage.class classes (i.e., HomePage extends WebPage instead of HomePage extends WebPage) in your WebApplicat

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Hi Sebastian, What about getModel()? If componennt is not generified I'm really wondering if the there is any benefit to generics at all... (I do really think it will spawn lots of questions on the list as well). what's the problem with getModel? If you specialize on a certain Component, you

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

+1 Even if its one of the built in composite models, you still kind of need them for most things you do. - Brill -Original Message- From: Hoover, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:59 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: RE: users, please give us your o

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I read it, but I think most people will be using models more frequently than 30% of the time. Personally, I use them 99% of the time. -Original Message- From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:54 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Jan Kriesten wrote: Hi Sebastiaan, I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled. that's part of the problem, agreed. Kind of "late in the game" to do anything about that it seems though. And I don't know if I ag

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

I'm likely missing something here, but why would you want to return something other than a *Page object? Wouldn't that cause some issues with the application? Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "raw type". - Brill Pappin -Original Message- From: Sebastiaan van Erk [mailto:[EMAIL

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Yes, the trick here is to not muddy up Wicket for the newcomers. Wicket needs to be easy to learn and understand in order for it to be adopted by the masses! On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Question is, how many of those users are core committers. Not

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Brill Pappin wrote: Why can't this be done the way the java API does it, and allow people to use it or not as they want? Wicket is pretty clean in terms of the API, and there are interfaces for most things... So what's the problem with adding the generics to the interfaces? AFAIK this would allo

RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Lets not forget the stats we're all aware of (or should be) that 80% of resources in software development are in maintenance... If I'm looking at my ROI, then my developers can type a few extra words in order to reduce that resource load. And lets face it; it *all* comes down to maintenance (and t

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > James Carman wrote: >> >> I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now. > > Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really about > generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which > r

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Hi William, If you use more than one type of model for a given component I would hardly say that it is only a fraction of the time. Do you use only one type of model on all your components? :o) read again - I said 70% of my components don't have a Model... The use of Void is not an obscure

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

James Carman wrote: I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now. Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really about generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS). One of the gotcha's I think is the getHomePag

Re: Wicket cheat sheet, solve your wicket problem fast?

Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael wrote: > I've created a small wicket cheat sheet for issues and features, please see > here : http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=9436254 > > ...Any comment will be welcome:) That page is so ridden with ad-spam, Nino, there's no visible content! My browser blocked

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

> > 1) Generifying* Wicket > [x] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill > in your opinion here). > After seeing the impact that generics had on the codebase, I'm begining to feel that it's not worth the effort. Trying to *JUST* generify models seems like a half baked sol

  1   2   3   >