Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
And, nothing is stopping you from doing something like this in your
own code. I have a class called ComponentUtils where I put stuff like
this. I have two methods:
public static T extends Serializable IModelT modelOf(T bean);
public static T extends Serializable IModelT modelFor(ClassT
beanClass); // This will instantiate the object for you.
I also have:
public static void detachAllModelFields(Component c);
With static imports, you can just use these methods like they're in
your classes.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Jeremy Thomerson
jer...@wickettraining.com wrote:
This is the key - and it has been discussed before (in the many grueling 1.4
conversations). The short of it is that with private constructors there's a
huge change and an inability to extend. And without the private
constructors, the static methods are dumb and extraneous because you would
need hundreds of them, and you would need even more of them on your extended
model and component classes.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Kappler
thomas.kapp...@isb-sib.chwrote:
On 04/15/10 13:06, James Perry wrote:
I can sympathise with that. However I don't think it would be a
maintenance nightmare if the constructors are set to private; but that
would mean a dramatic API change for such convenience and I'm guessing
you're not willing to do this.
Apart from the huge change for questionable benefit, that would also remove
inheritance, which is essential to the Wicket way, because you can't extend
a class with private constructors only. If you can, get a hold of Bloch,
Effective Java, and read the insightful chapter on the constructor vs.
static factory method trade-off.
-- Thomas
Best,
James.
On 14 April 2010 17:01, Igor Vaynbergigor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
james.austin.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
This is an example of my idea:
ModelMySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject model = Model.newModel();
public staticT ModelT newModel() {
return new ModelT();
}
Feedback welcomed. :-)
--
Best,
James.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
---
Thomas Kappler thomas.kapp...@isb-sib.ch
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Tel: +41 22 379 51 89
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1
1211 Geneve 4
Switzerland http://www.uniprot.org
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
Or use wicket as I explained on this page :)
http://java.dzone.com/articles/faster-development-easywicket
From: James Carman jcar...@carmanconsulting.com
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Sent: Fri, April 16, 2010 2:05:12 PM
Subject: Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
And, nothing is stopping you from doing something like this in your
own code. I have a class called ComponentUtils where I put stuff like
this. I have two methods:
public static T extends Serializable IModelT modelOf(T bean);
public static T extends Serializable IModelT modelFor(ClassT
beanClass); // This will instantiate the object for you.
I also have:
public static void detachAllModelFields(Component c);
With static imports, you can just use these methods like they're in
your classes.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Jeremy Thomerson
jer...@wickettraining.com wrote:
This is the key - and it has been discussed before (in the many grueling 1.4
conversations). The short of it is that with private constructors there's a
huge change and an inability to extend. And without the private
constructors, the static methods are dumb and extraneous because you would
need hundreds of them, and you would need even more of them on your extended
model and component classes.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Kappler
thomas.kapp...@isb-sib.chwrote:
On 04/15/10 13:06, James Perry wrote:
I can sympathise with that. However I don't think it would be a
maintenance nightmare if the constructors are set to private; but that
would mean a dramatic API change for such convenience and I'm guessing
you're not willing to do this.
Apart from the huge change for questionable benefit, that would also remove
inheritance, which is essential to the Wicket way, because you can't extend
a class with private constructors only. If you can, get a hold of Bloch,
Effective Java, and read the insightful chapter on the constructor vs.
static factory method trade-off.
-- Thomas
Best,
James.
On 14 April 2010 17:01, Igor Vaynbergigor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
james.austin.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
This is an example of my idea:
ModelMySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject model = Model.newModel();
public staticT ModelT newModel() {
return new ModelT();
}
Feedback welcomed. :-)
--
Best,
James.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
---
Thomas Kapplerthomas.kapp...@isb-sib.ch
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Tel: +41 22 379 51 89
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1
1211 Geneve 4
Switzerland http://www.uniprot.org
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
What happened to the groovy wicket builder project? I know it was on hold
until anonymous inner classes were going to be supported which were added in
groovy 1.7 irrc.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:58 AM, Erdinc kocam...@yahoo.com wrote:
Or use wicket as I explained on this page :)
http://java.dzone.com/articles/faster-development-easywicket
From: James Carman jcar...@carmanconsulting.com
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Sent: Fri, April 16, 2010 2:05:12 PM
Subject: Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
And, nothing is stopping you from doing something like this in your
own code. I have a class called ComponentUtils where I put stuff like
this. I have two methods:
public static T extends Serializable IModelT modelOf(T bean);
public static T extends Serializable IModelT modelFor(ClassT
beanClass); // This will instantiate the object for you.
I also have:
public static void detachAllModelFields(Component c);
With static imports, you can just use these methods like they're in
your classes.
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Jeremy Thomerson
jer...@wickettraining.com wrote:
This is the key - and it has been discussed before (in the many grueling
1.4
conversations). The short of it is that with private constructors
there's a
huge change and an inability to extend. And without the private
constructors, the static methods are dumb and extraneous because you
would
need hundreds of them, and you would need even more of them on your
extended
model and component classes.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Kappler
thomas.kapp...@isb-sib.chwrote:
On 04/15/10 13:06, James Perry wrote:
I can sympathise with that. However I don't think it would be a
maintenance nightmare if the constructors are set to private; but that
would mean a dramatic API change for such convenience and I'm guessing
you're not willing to do this.
Apart from the huge change for questionable benefit, that would also
remove
inheritance, which is essential to the Wicket way, because you can't
extend
a class with private constructors only. If you can, get a hold of Bloch,
Effective Java, and read the insightful chapter on the constructor vs.
static factory method trade-off.
-- Thomas
Best,
James.
On 14 April 2010 17:01, Igor Vaynbergigor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
james.austin.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
This is an example of my idea:
ModelMySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject model = Model.newModel();
public staticT ModelT newModel() {
return new ModelT();
}
Feedback welcomed. :-)
--
Best,
James.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
---
Thomas Kapplerthomas.kapp...@isb-sib.ch
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Tel: +41 22 379 51 89
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1
1211 Geneve 4
Switzerland http://www.uniprot.org
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
I can sympathise with that. However I don't think it would be a
maintenance nightmare if the constructors are set to private; but that
would mean a dramatic API change for such convenience and I'm guessing
you're not willing to do this.
Best,
James.
On 14 April 2010 17:01, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
james.austin.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
This is an example of my idea:
ModelMySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject model = Model.newModel();
public static T ModelT newModel() {
return new ModelT();
}
Feedback welcomed. :-)
--
Best,
James.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
On 04/15/10 13:06, James Perry wrote:
I can sympathise with that. However I don't think it would be a
maintenance nightmare if the constructors are set to private; but that
would mean a dramatic API change for such convenience and I'm guessing
you're not willing to do this.
Apart from the huge change for questionable benefit, that would also
remove inheritance, which is essential to the Wicket way, because you
can't extend a class with private constructors only. If you can, get a
hold of Bloch, Effective Java, and read the insightful chapter on the
constructor vs. static factory method trade-off.
-- Thomas
Best,
James.
On 14 April 2010 17:01, Igor Vaynbergigor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
james.austin.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
This is an example of my idea:
ModelMySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject model = Model.newModel();
public staticT ModelT newModel() {
return new ModelT();
}
Feedback welcomed. :-)
--
Best,
James.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
---
Thomas Kapplerthomas.kapp...@isb-sib.ch
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Tel: +41 22 379 51 89
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1
1211 Geneve 4
Switzerland http://www.uniprot.org
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
This is the key - and it has been discussed before (in the many grueling 1.4
conversations). The short of it is that with private constructors there's a
huge change and an inability to extend. And without the private
constructors, the static methods are dumb and extraneous because you would
need hundreds of them, and you would need even more of them on your extended
model and component classes.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Thomas Kappler
thomas.kapp...@isb-sib.chwrote:
On 04/15/10 13:06, James Perry wrote:
I can sympathise with that. However I don't think it would be a
maintenance nightmare if the constructors are set to private; but that
would mean a dramatic API change for such convenience and I'm guessing
you're not willing to do this.
Apart from the huge change for questionable benefit, that would also remove
inheritance, which is essential to the Wicket way, because you can't extend
a class with private constructors only. If you can, get a hold of Bloch,
Effective Java, and read the insightful chapter on the constructor vs.
static factory method trade-off.
-- Thomas
Best,
James.
On 14 April 2010 17:01, Igor Vaynbergigor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
james.austin.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
This is an example of my idea:
ModelMySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject model = Model.newModel();
public staticT ModelT newModel() {
return new ModelT();
}
Feedback welcomed. :-)
--
Best,
James.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
---
Thomas Kapplerthomas.kapp...@isb-sib.ch
Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics Tel: +41 22 379 51 89
CMU, rue Michel Servet 1
1211 Geneve 4
Switzerland http://www.uniprot.org
---
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Type Inference for Wicket 1.4
you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
-igor
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
james.austin.pe...@gmail.com wrote:
I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
This is an example of my idea:
ModelMySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject model = Model.newModel();
public static T ModelT newModel() {
return new ModelT();
}
Feedback welcomed. :-)
--
Best,
James.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
