Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
So, do we need to make it IModel>? That would allow what Oliver was talking about. On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Brill Pappin wrote: > See the sample test in ticket: WICKET-2137 > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137 > > - brill > > On 4-Mar-09, at 11:08 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote: > >> On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 10:04 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote: >>> >>> I actually wasn't saying they were the same. >>> What I said (meant) was that: >>> >>> a) don't lock down >> >> Locking down means *removing* the wildcard. Adding the wildcard *widens* >> the collection. >> >> To be clear: >> Wildcard --> it fits for everybody >> No wildcard --> it fits only for some special cases (maybe yours) >> >>> b) I prefer the explicit form rather than the "Any of type" form. i.e. >>> > rather than >. >> >> They mean something completely different. I understand that you prefer >> the shorter version. Many do. But it stays wrong... >> >> If the constructor accepts "List", everybody *has* to give you >> exactly a List. >> >> List n = new List; >> >> >> If the constructor accepts the widened type, you can add all those >> lists... >> >> List n = new List; >> List n = new List; >> List n = new List; >> >> >> If you don't believe me, take a look at GlazedLists. Compare version 1.7 >> and version 1.8. They changed exactly that thing (a non backward >> compatible change!). They made exactly the same fault... >> >> >> Regards, >> >> Johannes >> >>> >>> - Brill >>> >>> On 4-Mar-09, at 6:26 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote: >>> >>>> On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:02 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I'd hate to be >>>>> prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an >>>>> API that didn't really need locking down. >>>> >>>> You are wrong. *Widening* a collection is the exact opposite of >>>> "locking >>>> down". >>>> If you want to have some fancy (read "hacky") write access to the >>>> model >>>> you are free to simply cast... >>>> That is the right choice here. You know that you have a special >>>> model in >>>> there, so cast it. >>>> >>>> But the "common" case is, that you don't know for sure whether the >>>> model >>>> supports adding of choices or not. >>>> >>>> >>>> If you don't believe me, take a look at JComboBox. >>>> javax.swing.JComboBox#getModel returns a *read only* view of the >>>> model. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Johannes >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket >>>>> developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be >>>>> the way to go. >>>>> >>>>> I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit... >>>>> > would be my next choice because it widens the >>>>> scope. >>>>> >>>>> - Brill >>>>> >>>>> On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of >>>>>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the >>>>>> component >>>>>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter >>>>>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too >>>>>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your >>>>>> usecases (I always consider them read-only). >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> see WICKET-2126 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -igor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to >
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
See the sample test in ticket: WICKET-2137
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
- brill
On 4-Mar-09, at 11:08 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote:
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 10:04 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote:
I actually wasn't saying they were the same.
What I said (meant) was that:
a) don't lock down
Locking down means *removing* the wildcard. Adding the wildcard
*widens*
the collection.
To be clear:
Wildcard --> it fits for everybody
No wildcard --> it fits only for some special cases (maybe yours)
b) I prefer the explicit form rather than the "Any of type" form.
i.e.
> rather than >.
They mean something completely different. I understand that you prefer
the shorter version. Many do. But it stays wrong...
If the constructor accepts "List", everybody *has* to give you
exactly a List.
List n = new List;
If the constructor accepts the widened type, you can add all those
lists...
List n = new List;
List n = new List;
List n = new List;
If you don't believe me, take a look at GlazedLists. Compare version
1.7
and version 1.8. They changed exactly that thing (a non backward
compatible change!). They made exactly the same fault...
Regards,
Johannes
- Brill
On 4-Mar-09, at 6:26 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:02 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote:
I'd hate to be
prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock
down an
API that didn't really need locking down.
You are wrong. *Widening* a collection is the exact opposite of
"locking
down".
If you want to have some fancy (read "hacky") write access to the
model
you are free to simply cast...
That is the right choice here. You know that you have a special
model in
there, so cast it.
But the "common" case is, that you don't know for sure whether the
model
supports adding of choices or not.
If you don't believe me, take a look at JComboBox.
javax.swing.JComboBox#getModel returns a *read only* view of the
model.
Regards,
Johannes
I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket
developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list
would be
the way to go.
I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit...
> would be my next choice because it widens the
scope.
- Brill
On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote:
Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the
component
is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to
alter
those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of
your
usecases (I always consider them read-only).
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
wrote:
see WICKET-2126
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
wrote:
I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to
making
ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
flexible.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
+1
for making the generic definition the same for all list type
components.
FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at
(which
might
actually be a better place to vote):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like:
"VOTE:
Remove
? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
I'd be +1 non-binding
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
So how do I go about gathering support for having the
DropDownChoice work
with the models the way everything else does?
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care
if it
is
all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the
choices
model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
class Bar exends Foo {}
List list = ...
list.add(new Bar());
Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was
intentional?
- Brill
On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
list stings=...
strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos
Fernandes
wrote:
What do you mean with "read only" here?
Adriano
Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
collections are read only, it would be
too
inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
-igor
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
wrote:
This is what I was commenting on last
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
I agree. It is very sensible to be able to provide a Model> as the choices for a dropdown that has Model. Restricting the choices to Model> only eliminates (sensible) options for the client code. Scott On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote: > On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 10:04 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote: >> I actually wasn't saying they were the same. >> What I said (meant) was that: >> >> a) don't lock down > > Locking down means *removing* the wildcard. Adding the wildcard *widens* > the collection. > > To be clear: > Wildcard --> it fits for everybody > No wildcard --> it fits only for some special cases (maybe yours) > >> b) I prefer the explicit form rather than the "Any of type" form. i.e. >> > rather than >. > > They mean something completely different. I understand that you prefer > the shorter version. Many do. But it stays wrong... > > If the constructor accepts "List", everybody *has* to give you > exactly a List. > > List n = new List; > > > If the constructor accepts the widened type, you can add all those > lists... > > List n = new List; > List n = new List; > List n = new List; > > > If you don't believe me, take a look at GlazedLists. Compare version 1.7 > and version 1.8. They changed exactly that thing (a non backward > compatible change!). They made exactly the same fault... > > > Regards, > > Johannes > - Show quoted text - >> >> - Brill >> >> On 4-Mar-09, at 6:26 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote: >> >> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:02 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote: >> >> I'd hate to be >> >> prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an >> >> API that didn't really need locking down. >> > >> > You are wrong. *Widening* a collection is the exact opposite of >> > "locking >> > down". >> > If you want to have some fancy (read "hacky") write access to the >> > model >> > you are free to simply cast... >> > That is the right choice here. You know that you have a special >> > model in >> > there, so cast it. >> > >> > But the "common" case is, that you don't know for sure whether the >> > model >> > supports adding of choices or not. >> > >> > >> > If you don't believe me, take a look at JComboBox. >> > javax.swing.JComboBox#getModel returns a *read only* view of the >> > model. >> > >> > >> > >> > Regards, >> > >> > Johannes >> > >> > >> >> I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket >> >> developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be >> >> the way to go. >> >> >> >> I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit... >> >> > would be my next choice because it widens the >> >> scope. >> >> >> >> - Brill >> >> >> >> On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote: >> >> >> >>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of >> >>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the >> >>> component >> >>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter >> >>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too >> >>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your >> >>> usecases (I always consider them read-only). >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg >> >>> wrote: >> >>>> see WICKET-2126 >> >>>> >> >>>> -igor >> >>>> >> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman >> >>>> wrote: >> >>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to >> >>>>> making >> >>>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less >> >>>>> flexible. >> >>>>> >> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin >> >>>>> wrote: >> >>>>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote. >> >>>>>> >> >>>>>> +1 >> >>>>>> for making the g
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
Hi everyone (I'm new to the list),
Johannes, you are right about lists:
> If the constructor accepts the widened type, you can add all those
> lists...
>
> List n = new List;
> List n = new List;
> List n = new List;
But in our case the constructor parameter is an IModel, no a list. Try
the following:
IModel> model = new
LoadableDetachableModel>() { ... };
See my comment in JIRA for more detail.
Olivier
2009/3/4 Johannes Schneider :
> On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 10:04 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote:
>> I actually wasn't saying they were the same.
>> What I said (meant) was that:
>>
>> a) don't lock down
>
> Locking down means *removing* the wildcard. Adding the wildcard *widens*
> the collection.
>
> To be clear:
> Wildcard --> it fits for everybody
> No wildcard --> it fits only for some special cases (maybe yours)
>
>> b) I prefer the explicit form rather than the "Any of type" form. i.e.
>> > rather than >.
>
> They mean something completely different. I understand that you prefer
> the shorter version. Many do. But it stays wrong...
>
> If the constructor accepts "List", everybody *has* to give you
> exactly a List.
>
> List n = new List;
>
>
> If the constructor accepts the widened type, you can add all those
> lists...
>
> List n = new List;
> List n = new List;
> List n = new List;
>
>
> If you don't believe me, take a look at GlazedLists. Compare version 1.7
> and version 1.8. They changed exactly that thing (a non backward
> compatible change!). They made exactly the same fault...
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Johannes
>
>>
>> - Brill
>>
>> On 4-Mar-09, at 6:26 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote:
>>
>> > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:02 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote:
>> >> I'd hate to be
>> >> prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an
>> >> API that didn't really need locking down.
>> >
>> > You are wrong. *Widening* a collection is the exact opposite of
>> > "locking
>> > down".
>> > If you want to have some fancy (read "hacky") write access to the
>> > model
>> > you are free to simply cast...
>> > That is the right choice here. You know that you have a special
>> > model in
>> > there, so cast it.
>> >
>> > But the "common" case is, that you don't know for sure whether the
>> > model
>> > supports adding of choices or not.
>> >
>> >
>> > If you don't believe me, take a look at JComboBox.
>> > javax.swing.JComboBox#getModel returns a *read only* view of the
>> > model.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Johannes
>> >
>> >
>> >> I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket
>> >> developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be
>> >> the way to go.
>> >>
>> >> I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit...
>> >> > would be my next choice because it widens the
>> >> scope.
>> >>
>> >> - Brill
>> >>
>> >> On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
>> >>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the
>> >>> component
>> >>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
>> >>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
>> >>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
>> >>> usecases (I always consider them read-only).
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> see WICKET-2126
>> >>>>
>> >>>> -igor
>> >>>>
>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
>> >>>> wrote:
>> >>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to
>> >>>>> making
>> >>>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
>> >>>>> flexible.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>> Ok, as su
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 10:04 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote: > I actually wasn't saying they were the same. > What I said (meant) was that: > > a) don't lock down Locking down means *removing* the wildcard. Adding the wildcard *widens* the collection. To be clear: Wildcard --> it fits for everybody No wildcard --> it fits only for some special cases (maybe yours) > b) I prefer the explicit form rather than the "Any of type" form. i.e. > > rather than >. They mean something completely different. I understand that you prefer the shorter version. Many do. But it stays wrong... If the constructor accepts "List", everybody *has* to give you exactly a List. List n = new List; If the constructor accepts the widened type, you can add all those lists... List n = new List; List n = new List; List n = new List; If you don't believe me, take a look at GlazedLists. Compare version 1.7 and version 1.8. They changed exactly that thing (a non backward compatible change!). They made exactly the same fault... Regards, Johannes > > - Brill > > On 4-Mar-09, at 6:26 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote: > > > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:02 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote: > >> I'd hate to be > >> prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an > >> API that didn't really need locking down. > > > > You are wrong. *Widening* a collection is the exact opposite of > > "locking > > down". > > If you want to have some fancy (read "hacky") write access to the > > model > > you are free to simply cast... > > That is the right choice here. You know that you have a special > > model in > > there, so cast it. > > > > But the "common" case is, that you don't know for sure whether the > > model > > supports adding of choices or not. > > > > > > If you don't believe me, take a look at JComboBox. > > javax.swing.JComboBox#getModel returns a *read only* view of the > > model. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Johannes > > > > > >> I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket > >> developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be > >> the way to go. > >> > >> I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit... > >> > would be my next choice because it widens the > >> scope. > >> > >> - Brill > >> > >> On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote: > >> > >>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of > >>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the > >>> component > >>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter > >>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too > >>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your > >>> usecases (I always consider them read-only). > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg > >>> wrote: > >>>> see WICKET-2126 > >>>> > >>>> -igor > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to > >>>>> making > >>>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less > >>>>> flexible. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> +1 > >>>>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type > >>>>>> components. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which > >>>>>> might > >>>>>> actually be a better place to vote): > >>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Brill > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Perhaps start a
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
I actually wasn't saying they were the same.
What I said (meant) was that:
a) don't lock down
b) I prefer the explicit form rather than the "Any of type" form. i.e.
> rather than >.
- Brill
On 4-Mar-09, at 6:26 AM, Johannes Schneider wrote:
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:02 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote:
I'd hate to be
prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an
API that didn't really need locking down.
You are wrong. *Widening* a collection is the exact opposite of
"locking
down".
If you want to have some fancy (read "hacky") write access to the
model
you are free to simply cast...
That is the right choice here. You know that you have a special
model in
there, so cast it.
But the "common" case is, that you don't know for sure whether the
model
supports adding of choices or not.
If you don't believe me, take a look at JComboBox.
javax.swing.JComboBox#getModel returns a *read only* view of the
model.
Regards,
Johannes
I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket
developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be
the way to go.
I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit...
> would be my next choice because it widens the
scope.
- Brill
On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote:
Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the
component
is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
usecases (I always consider them read-only).
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
wrote:
see WICKET-2126
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
wrote:
I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to
making
ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
flexible.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
+1
for making the generic definition the same for all list type
components.
FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which
might
actually be a better place to vote):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like:
"VOTE:
Remove
? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
I'd be +1 non-binding
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
So how do I go about gathering support for having the
DropDownChoice work
with the models the way everything else does?
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it
is
all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the
choices
model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
class Bar exends Foo {}
List list = ...
list.add(new Bar());
Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was
intentional?
- Brill
On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
list stings=...
strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos
Fernandes
wrote:
What do you mean with "read only" here?
Adriano
Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
collections are read only, it would be too
inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
-igor
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
wrote:
This is what I was commenting on last week on the list
(or earlier
this
week). One expects List while the other
expects
List.
I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the
better
option.
Either way, I think they should be the same.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
Roughly what I'm doing is:
class TypeA{}
class TypeAModel extends LoadableDetachableModel<
List> {
public List load(){
... do the load ...
return ...
}
}
TypeAModel model = new TypeAModel();
DropDownChoice< TypeA> ddc = new
DropDownChoice("id", model
);
which gets complained about... in this case the generic
def is
DropDownChoice>
I think the problem is that the generic def of the class
should
actually
be
DropDownChoice> because you are already
identifying the
type
when
you create a new instance.
Now... my generics are a bit hazy at this level, because
I can
understand
why it was done that way... does anyone with more
generics
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 15:11 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote:
> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>
> +1
> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
Yes, you are right. All those list type components should have the same
generic definition.
But: Don't "fix" those components that have the correct definition.
Please fix those that have the wrong (without wildcard) definition.
I think the core problem is, that IModel has a setter. But it doesn't
make any sense to offer a setter on a model providing a collection.
If all those list type components accept "IReadOnlyModel", most of the
discussed points will become obvious.
I think I will create another post, explaining the problem with IModel
and Collections...
Regards,
Johannes
>
> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
> actually be a better place to vote):
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>
> - Brill
>
>
>
>
> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>
> > Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
> > Remove
> > ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
> >
> > I'd be +1 non-binding
> >
> >
> > --
> > Jeremy Thomerson
> > http://www.wickettraining.com
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
> >
> >> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
> >>
> >> So how do I go about gathering support for having the
> >> DropDownChoice work
> >> with the models the way everything else does?
> >>
> >> - Brill
> >>
> >>
> >> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >>
> >> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
> >>
> >>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
> >>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
> >>>
> >>> -igor
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
> >>>>
> >>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
> >>>> List list = ...
> >>>> list.add(new Bar());
> >>>>
> >>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was
> >>>> intentional?
> >>>>
> >>>> - Brill
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> list stings=...
> >>>>> strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -igor
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What do you mean with "read only" here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Adriano
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> collections are read only, it would be too
> >>>>>>> inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -igor
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is what I was commenting on last week on the list (or
> >>>>>>>> earlier
> >>>>>>>> this
> >>>>>>>> week). One expects List while the other expects
> >>>>>>>> List.
> >>>>>>>> I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the better
> >>>>>>>> option.
> >>>>>>>> Either way, I think they should be the same.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
> >>>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM,
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:02 -0500, Brill Pappin wrote: > I'd hate to be > prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an > API that didn't really need locking down. You are wrong. *Widening* a collection is the exact opposite of "locking down". If you want to have some fancy (read "hacky") write access to the model you are free to simply cast... That is the right choice here. You know that you have a special model in there, so cast it. But the "common" case is, that you don't know for sure whether the model supports adding of choices or not. If you don't believe me, take a look at JComboBox. javax.swing.JComboBox#getModel returns a *read only* view of the model. Regards, Johannes > I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket > developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be > the way to go. > > I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit... > > would be my next choice because it widens the scope. > > - Brill > > On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote: > > > Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of > > ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component > > is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter > > those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too > > limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your > > usecases (I always consider them read-only). > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg > > wrote: > >> see WICKET-2126 > >> > >> -igor > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman > >> wrote: > >>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making > >>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less > >>> flexible. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin > >>> wrote: > >>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote. > >>>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type > >>>> components. > >>>> > >>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which > >>>> might > >>>> actually be a better place to vote): > >>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137 > >>>> > >>>> - Brill > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: > >>>>> "VOTE: > >>>>> Remove > >>>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice". > >>>>> > >>>>> I'd be +1 non-binding > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Jeremy Thomerson > >>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the > >>>>>> DropDownChoice work > >>>>>> with the models the way everything else does? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - Brill > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it > >>>>>> is > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the > >>>>>>> choices > >>>>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -igor > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" F
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
it has nothing to do with us wanting to "lock" something down. i am
simply stating that the read-only nature is a side-effect of a widened
type declaration. it is something we should all be aware of.
-igor
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
> I usually think of them as read only as well, however why would you presume
> read only?
>
> they are pretty much exactly the same semantically and if I thought of some
> cool trick I could do modifying the list, I'd hate to be prevented from
> doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an API that didn't
> really need locking down.
> I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket
> developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be the
> way to go.
>
> I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit... extends T>> would be my next choice because it widens the scope.
>
> - Brill
>
> On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote:
>
>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component
>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
>> usecases (I always consider them read-only).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> see WICKET-2126
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
>>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
>>>> flexible.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type
>>>>> components.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
>>>>> actually be a better place to vote):
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>>>>>> Remove
>>>>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>>>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was
>
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
I usually think of them as read only as well, however why would you
presume read only?
they are pretty much exactly the same semantically and if I thought of
some cool trick I could do modifying the list, I'd hate to be
prevented from doing so simply because someone wanted to lock down an
API that didn't really need locking down.
I think the syntax doesn't really mean read only, and if the wicket
developers really want it to be read only, wrapping the list would be
the way to go.
I'm for the plain old > because its simple and explicit...
> would be my next choice because it widens the scope.
- Brill
On 2-Mar-09, at 3:44 PM, James Carman wrote:
Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component
is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
usecases (I always consider them read-only).
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
wrote:
see WICKET-2126
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
wrote:
I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
flexible.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
+1
for making the generic definition the same for all list type
components.
FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which
might
actually be a better place to vote):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like:
"VOTE:
Remove
? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
I'd be +1 non-binding
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
So how do I go about gathering support for having the
DropDownChoice work
with the models the way everything else does?
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it
is
all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the
choices
model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
class Bar exends Foo {}
List list = ...
list.add(new Bar());
Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was
intentional?
- Brill
On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
list stings=...
strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
wrote:
What do you mean with "read only" here?
Adriano
Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
collections are read only, it would be too
inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
-igor
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
wrote:
This is what I was commenting on last week on the list
(or earlier
this
week). One expects List while the other
expects
List.
I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the
better
option.
Either way, I think they should be the same.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Brill Pappin >
wrote:
Roughly what I'm doing is:
class TypeA{}
class TypeAModel extends LoadableDetachableModel<
List> {
public List load(){
... do the load ...
return ...
}
}
TypeAModel model = new TypeAModel();
DropDownChoice< TypeA> ddc = new
DropDownChoice("id", model
);
which gets complained about... in this case the generic
def is
DropDownChoice>
I think the problem is that the generic def of the class
should
actually
be
DropDownChoice> because you are already
identifying the
type
when
you create a new instance.
Now... my generics are a bit hazy at this level, because
I can
understand
why it was done that way... does anyone with more generics
experience
know
what it should be? Is this a bug that needs filing?
- Brill
On 26-Feb-09, at 6:03 PM, Kaspar Fischer wrote:
On 26.02.2009, at 22:52, Brill Pappin wrote:
For some reason the DropDownChoice component doesn't
have the
same
generics as ListView and it will not accept a model that
listview
will,
despite its saying that it will accept an IModel.
Is anyone else having that sort of trouble with
DropDownChoice?
- Brill
Can you give us more information on what exactly is not
working
for
you?
DropDownChoice indeed does accept a model, see for
instance the
example
in
the class description at
http://wicket.
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, Brill Pappin wrote: > Might as well merge the two then... I did do a quick check to see if > there was another ticket, but obviously a bit too quick :) I think that it's more or less a "full-time hobby" just trying to keep up with what happens on the lists and Jira and source code repository :) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
Might as well merge the two then... I did do a quick check to see if
there was another ticket, but obviously a bit too quick :)
- Brill Pappin
On 2-Mar-09, at 3:15 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
have you seen this thread? looks like someone beat you to it.
[vote] In Wicket 1.4 and onwards, remove widening from the list of
choices model in DropDownChoice, changing it from IModel> to IModel>
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
+1
for making the generic definition the same for all list type
components.
FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which
might
actually be a better place to vote):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
Remove
? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
I'd be +1 non-binding
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
So how do I go about gathering support for having the
DropDownChoice work
with the models the way everything else does?
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it
is
all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
class Bar exends Foo {}
List list = ...
list.add(new Bar());
Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was
intentional?
- Brill
On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
list stings=...
strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
wrote:
What do you mean with "read only" here?
Adriano
Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
collections are read only, it would be too
inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
-igor
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
wrote:
This is what I was commenting on last week on the list (or
earlier
this
week). One expects List while the other
expects
List.
I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the
better
option.
Either way, I think they should be the same.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Brill Pappin >
wrote:
Roughly what I'm doing is:
class TypeA{}
class TypeAModel extends LoadableDetachableModel<
List> {
public List load(){
... do the load ...
return ...
}
}
TypeAModel model = new TypeAModel();
DropDownChoice< TypeA> ddc = new
DropDownChoice("id", model
);
which gets complained about... in this case the generic
def is
DropDownChoice>
I think the problem is that the generic def of the class
should
actually
be
DropDownChoice> because you are already
identifying the
type
when
you create a new instance.
Now... my generics are a bit hazy at this level, because I
can
understand
why it was done that way... does anyone with more generics
experience
know
what it should be? Is this a bug that needs filing?
- Brill
On 26-Feb-09, at 6:03 PM, Kaspar Fischer wrote:
On 26.02.2009, at 22:52, Brill Pappin wrote:
For some reason the DropDownChoice component doesn't have
the
same
generics as ListView and it will not accept a model that
listview
will,
despite its saying that it will accept an IModel.
Is anyone else having that sort of trouble with
DropDownChoice?
- Brill
Can you give us more information on what exactly is not
working
for
you?
DropDownChoice indeed does accept a model, see for
instance the
example
in
the class description at
http://wicket.apache.org/docs/1.4/org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/DropDownChoice.html
This works for me.
Kaspar
--
site 1
site 2
// Code
List SITES = Arrays.asList(new String[] {
"The Server Side", "Java Lobby", "Java.Net"
});
form.add(new DropDownChoice("site", SITES));
form.add(new ListView("site2", SITES)
{
@Override
protected void populateItem(ListItem item)
{
item.add(new Label("sitename", item.getModel()));
}
});
-
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
? extends
-
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009, walnutmon wrote: > It seems that the drop down should at least be able to take a ListModel, > but that doesn't work either... I think that there's also a convenience model called something like Wildcard*Model for the wildcarded case. Best wishes, Timo - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
It seems that the drop down should at least be able to take a ListModel,
but that doesn't work either...
I actually was just writing code to get around this right now.
DropDownChoice dd =
new DropDownChoice("foo",
new IModel>()
{
public List getObject()
{
return getListOfFoos();
}
//some noops
});
Thoughts?
igor.vaynberg wrote:
>
> i also dont remember using a compound property model...can we remove that?
>
> -igor
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> Can you remember ever having to do either one of those? I guess I
>> could see someone trying to do such a thing during the processing of
>> an AJAX request to perhaps make more stuff show up in the
>> DDC/ListView. But, for that case, wouldn't it be easier to just
>> modify the underlying list (I assume they'd use a list because
>> anything else, such as an LDM, would tend to be read-only)?
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>> wrote:
>>> depends on your coding style.
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, James Carman
>>> wrote:
>>>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
>>>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component
>>>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
>>>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
>>>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
>>>> usecases (I always consider them read-only).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> see WICKET-2126
>>>>>
>>>>> -igor
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
>>>>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
>>>>>> flexible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> +1
>>>>>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type
>>>>>>> components.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which
>>>>>>> might
>>>>>>> actually be a better place to vote):
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like:
>>>>>>>> "VOTE:
>>>>>>>> Remove
>>>>>>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the
>>>>>>>>> DropDownChoice work
>>>>>>>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>
Re: [off topic] was: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
It would make writing books, giving presentations and tutorials *that* much simpler ... Martijn On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 5:42 AM, Jan Kriesten wrote: > >> i also dont remember using a compound property model...can we remove that? > > hehe - i haven't used that either. > > + 1 on removing cpm! ;-) > > Best reagards, --- Jan. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
[off topic] was: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
> i also dont remember using a compound property model...can we remove that? hehe - i haven't used that either. + 1 on removing cpm! ;-) Best reagards, --- Jan. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
i also dont remember using a compound property model...can we remove that?
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:57 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> Can you remember ever having to do either one of those? I guess I
> could see someone trying to do such a thing during the processing of
> an AJAX request to perhaps make more stuff show up in the
> DDC/ListView. But, for that case, wouldn't it be easier to just
> modify the underlying list (I assume they'd use a list because
> anything else, such as an LDM, would tend to be read-only)?
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> depends on your coding style.
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
>>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component
>>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
>>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
>>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
>>> usecases (I always consider them read-only).
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>>> wrote:
>>>> see WICKET-2126
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
>>>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
>>>>> flexible.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1
>>>>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
>>>>>> actually be a better place to vote):
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>>>>>>> Remove
>>>>>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>>>>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>>>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>>>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was intentional?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> - Brill
&
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
Can you remember ever having to do either one of those? I guess I
could see someone trying to do such a thing during the processing of
an AJAX request to perhaps make more stuff show up in the
DDC/ListView. But, for that case, wouldn't it be easier to just
modify the underlying list (I assume they'd use a list because
anything else, such as an LDM, would tend to be read-only)?
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> depends on your coding style.
>
> -igor
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
>> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component
>> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
>> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
>> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
>> usecases (I always consider them read-only).
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>> wrote:
>>> see WICKET-2126
>>>
>>> -igor
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
>>> wrote:
>>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
>>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
>>>> flexible.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>>>>>
>>>>> +1
>>>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
>>>>>
>>>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
>>>>> actually be a better place to vote):
>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>>>>>> Remove
>>>>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice
>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>>>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was intentional?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> list stings=...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>&
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
depends on your coding style.
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
> ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component
> is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
> those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
> limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
> usecases (I always consider them read-only).
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> see WICKET-2126
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
>> wrote:
>>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
>>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
>>> flexible.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
>>>>
>>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
>>>> actually be a better place to vote):
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>>>>
>>>> - Brill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>>>>> Remove
>>>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice work
>>>>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was intentional?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> list stings=...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What do you mean with "read only" here?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Adriano
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> collections are read only, it would be too
>>>>>>>>>>> inconvenient to make
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
Aren't both the "choices" model in DDC and the actual model of
ListView supposed to be considered read-only (as far as the component
is concerned)? The DDC and ListView don't need to be able to alter
those models anyway, right? Perhaps my experience is just too
limited, but I don't think I've ever tried to do either one of your
usecases (I always consider them read-only).
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> see WICKET-2126
>
> -igor
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
> wrote:
>> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
>> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
>> flexible.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>>>
>>> +1
>>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
>>>
>>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
>>> actually be a better place to vote):
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>>>
>>> - Brill
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>>>> Remove
>>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>>>
>>>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>>>
>>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice work
>>>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>>>
>>>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was intentional?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> list stings=...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What do you mean with "read only" here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Adriano
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> collections are read only, it would be too
>>>>>>>>>> inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is what I was commenting on last week on the list (or earlier
>>>>>>
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
see WICKET-2126
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:19 PM, James Carman
wrote:
> I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
> ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
> flexible.
>
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>>
>> +1
>> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
>>
>> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
>> actually be a better place to vote):
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>>
>> - Brill
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>>> Remove
>>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>>
>>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>>
>>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice work
>>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>>
>>>> - Brill
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>>
>>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>>
>>>>> -igor
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was intentional?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> list stings=...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean with "read only" here?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Adriano
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> collections are read only, it would be too
>>>>>>>>> inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is what I was commenting on last week on the list (or earlier
>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>> week). One expects List while the other expects
>>>>>>>>>> List.
>>>>>>>>>> I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the better
>>>>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>>>>> Either way, I think they should be the same.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Brill Pappin
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
&g
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
I vote -0.99 on this (non-binding of course). I'd vote +1 to making
ListView accept List rather than making DDC less
flexible.
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>
> +1
> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
>
> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
> actually be a better place to vote):
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>
> - Brill
>
>
>
>
> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>
>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>> Remove
>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>
>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Thomerson
>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>
>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>
>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice work
>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>
>>> - Brill
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>
>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>
>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>
>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was intentional?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> list stings=...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean with "read only" here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adriano
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> collections are read only, it would be too
>>>>>>>> inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is what I was commenting on last week on the list (or earlier
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> week). One expects List while the other expects
>>>>>>>>> List.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the better
>>>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>>>> Either way, I think they should be the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Brill Pappin
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Roughly what I'm doing is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> class TypeA{}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> class TypeAModel extends LoadableDetachableModel< List> {
>>>>>>>>>> public List load(){
>>>>>>>>>> ... do the load ...
>>>>>>>>>>
Re: VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
have you seen this thread? looks like someone beat you to it.
[vote] In Wicket 1.4 and onwards, remove widening from the list of
choices model in DropDownChoice, changing it from IModel> to IModel>
-igor
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
> Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
>
> +1
> for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
>
> FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
> actually be a better place to vote):
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
>
> - Brill
>
>
>
>
> On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
>
>> Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
>> Remove
>> ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
>>
>> I'd be +1 non-binding
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jeremy Thomerson
>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>
>>> I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
>>>
>>> So how do I go about gathering support for having the DropDownChoice work
>>> with the models the way everything else does?
>>>
>>> - Brill
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>
>>> yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
>>>>
>>>> all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
>>>> model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
>>>>>
>>>>> class Bar exends Foo {}
>>>>> List list = ...
>>>>> list.add(new Bar());
>>>>>
>>>>> Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was intentional?
>>>>>
>>>>> - Brill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> list stings=...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What do you mean with "read only" here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Adriano
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> collections are read only, it would be too
>>>>>>>> inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -igor
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is what I was commenting on last week on the list (or earlier
>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>> week). One expects List while the other expects
>>>>>>>>> List.
>>>>>>>>> I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the better
>>>>>>>>> option.
>>>>>>>>> Either way, I think they should be the same.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Jeremy Thomerson
>>>>>>>>> http://www.wickettraining.com
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Brill Pappin
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Roughly what I'm doing is:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> class TypeA{}
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> class TypeAModel extends LoadableDetachableModel< List> {
>>>>>&g
VOTE: Remove ? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice
Ok, as suggested, here is the thread, and the first vote.
+1
for making the generic definition the same for all list type components.
FYI - you can also "vote" in the issue I just created at (which might
actually be a better place to vote):
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-2137
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 5:18 PM, Jeremy Thomerson wrote:
Perhaps start a vote thread, with the subject something like: "VOTE:
Remove
? extends from constructor of DropDownChoice".
I'd be +1 non-binding
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Brill Pappin wrote:
I'm of the don't widen it camp anyway :)
So how do I go about gathering support for having the
DropDownChoice work
with the models the way everything else does?
- Brill
On 28-Feb-09, at 1:42 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
yes, the choice was intentional. personally i do not care if it is
all the way, some users complained so we widened it on the choices
model, we cannot widen it on the main model.
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 8:51 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
I see... but this would i think because Bar "is a" Foo:
class Bar exends Foo {}
List list = ...
list.add(new Bar());
Anyway, what your saying is that the generics choice was
intentional?
- Brill
On 27-Feb-09, at 3:19 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
list stings=...
strings.add("asd"); <== wont compile
-igor
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Adriano dos Santos Fernandes
wrote:
What do you mean with "read only" here?
Adriano
Igor Vaynberg escreveu:
collections are read only, it would be too
inconvenient to make the model collection read only :)
-igor
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson
wrote:
This is what I was commenting on last week on the list (or
earlier
this
week). One expects List while the other expects
List.
I'm not fully convinced yet that the "? extends" is the better
option.
Either way, I think they should be the same.
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:27 PM, Brill Pappin
wrote:
Roughly what I'm doing is:
class TypeA{}
class TypeAModel extends LoadableDetachableModel<
List> {
public List load(){
... do the load ...
return ...
}
}
TypeAModel model = new TypeAModel();
DropDownChoice< TypeA> ddc = new DropDownChoice("id",
model
);
which gets complained about... in this case the generic def is
DropDownChoice>
I think the problem is that the generic def of the class
should
actually
be
DropDownChoice> because you are already identifying
the type
when
you create a new instance.
Now... my generics are a bit hazy at this level, because I can
understand
why it was done that way... does anyone with more generics
experience
know
what it should be? Is this a bug that needs filing?
- Brill
On 26-Feb-09, at 6:03 PM, Kaspar Fischer wrote:
On 26.02.2009, at 22:52, Brill Pappin wrote:
For some reason the DropDownChoice component doesn't have
the same
generics as ListView and it will not accept a model that
listview
will,
despite its saying that it will accept an IModel.
Is anyone else having that sort of trouble with
DropDownChoice?
- Brill
Can you give us more information on what exactly is not
working for
you?
DropDownChoice indeed does accept a model, see for instance
the
example
in
the class description at
http://wicket.apache.org/docs/1.4/org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/DropDownChoice.html
This works for me.
Kaspar
--
site 1
site 2
// Code
List SITES = Arrays.asList(new String[] {
"The Server Side", "Java Lobby", "Java.Net"
});
form.add(new DropDownChoice("site", SITES));
form.add(new ListView("site2", SITES)
{
@Override
protected void populateItem(ListItem item)
{
item.add(new Label("sitename", item.getModel()));
}
});
-
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
? extends
-
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 com
