In 1.3.4 this error shouldnt happen, it is just ignored
On 6/1/08, atul singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
As a result of code integration from various teams we have introduced
some change which is causing problems...
but the sad part is that we do not know what is happening--
I will loove
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[ ] Whatever
Didnt you encounter the big thread (at least 100 messages) where we
discussed/voted going to 1.4? (and cool down dev on 1.3)
On 6/1/08, Ayodeji Aladejebi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
scan this user forum, you will realize that there is no high demand for
generics in wicket from users. I am yet to
I am writing my own IRequestCodingStrategy that will be returned by
getRequestCodingStrategy() in a subclass of DefaultWebRequestCycleProcessor.
I use my IRequestCodingStrategy to translate a URL like
index.jsp?content_id=17 into /press/articles/this_is_my_headline.html
using decode() and
why do you want to add extra params in the RequestParameters?
The use case is this. The request comes in with a URL like
/press/article/headline.html. I will take the URL and look up which
Content node this path maps to in our CMS. Then I would like to add the id
of this Content node into the
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
2) How strongly do
*This is happening on use of ajax tabs...and that too all of them wherever
they are in our application..
I remember this happening earlier when there were unclosed img tags:: look
at this mail
*http://www.mail-archive.com/users@wicket.apache.org/msg15126.html
*Is any similar things there I am not
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
[X2] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only
I can do that within a day or 2..(Meaning with the patch..).does any core
dev see an issue if info,debug etc start taking Serializable as parameter
like error().??
Thanks
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Hi, Atul,
That sounds like a reasonable request
1) Generifying* Wicket
[ X ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
2) How strongly do
Thank you all for the response. I did it in a simple way .. Duplicate the
TabbedPanel source code in a diff name (VerticalTabbedPanel) in my
application and modified the html alone slightly so that the target panel
comes in the RHS.
Thanks,
nazeem
Mr Mean wrote:
Well if you are talking
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
2) How strongly do you
1) Generifying* Wicket
[x] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
I had a production quality project with the old 2.0 branch
Hi,
in my Wicket application (using Wicket 1.3.3) I have a Login page. In case
of a session timeout, the user is supposed to be sent back to something
looking like the login page with an additional text Your session has timed
out.
So I thought the best way to deal with this would be to create
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
This is the only solution that makes sense, the other options are
Hi,
We use sortable AbstractColumn derivatives in our DataTable.
I added this recently to the column to add a custom CSS class to the
TD elements in this column (see IStyledColumn):
@Override getCssClass {return colmn_class;}
Now my TH elements have an aggregate class list with the sortedness
Hi
I've created a small wicket cheat sheet for issues and features, please
see here : http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=9436254
It's based on my experience so it's certainly not complete and you
should consider it a draft.
Any comment will be welcome:)
--
-Wicket for love
Nino Martinez Wael
Yup..
James Carman wrote:
Well, the test and prod profiles do have that property set to
deployment. The default properties just sets it to development.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Great:) Looks like we do a lot of stuff
Looks like your security strategy is not allowing your pageexpired
page to be instantiated. in that case it will try to render the login
page.
Note that this is default behavior both in wicket-auth-roles and swarm.
Check the documentation for how to set your security strategy to allow
wicket to
Interesting idea - I'd encourage you to expand a bit on the the Are
you using models? stage though, as that could be take the wrong way!
:-)
Incidently, for non-visibles, you might want to consider
Component.setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag() as an alternative such as
when the parent contains a
On 6/2/08, wenm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But my label only show the message when the web service returns error, not
constant showing. So it is not a good idea to use resourceModel.
I know I'm not answering your original question, but until someone
does, you could look at either the
Hi Maurice,
thanks for your quick response. I have tested quite a bit this morning and
in most cases, the PageExpired page is being instantiated and redirected to
on timeouts, but in other cases, it is not. I do not understand the exact
circumstances, but I don't think the security strategy
I want to read a properties file test.properties, and show the value which is
defined in properties file in a lable. But I can't read the properties file
I have tried
property.load(ClassLoader.getSystemResourceAsStream(test.properties));
1) Generifying* Wicket
[x] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[x]
Thanks.
But still the lable will show different messages according to different
error situation. So even to make it show up conditionally can't solve the
problem.
Gabor Szokoli wrote:
On 6/2/08, wenm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But my label only show the message when the web service returns
how to configure expire header value for wicket resources like
indicator.gif
wicket js
etc
?
and, if we can set the expire to long time away, can wicket name the
resources with version according to wicket release version?
--
View this message in context:
New version : http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=277854
Gwyn Evans wrote:
Interesting idea - I'd encourage you to expand a bit on the the Are
you using models? stage though, as that could be take the wrong way!
:-)
True, i've elaborated it a bit.
Incidently, for non-visibles, you might want to
Hi,
about not removing the entries, can you please create jira issue? I
will try to look into it ASAP.
-Matej
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Stefan Fußenegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I had 2 memory related crashes of my Wicket app. Thanks to the
priceless
Eventually you might be interested in
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1666
Am 02.06.2008 um 09:02 schrieb reikje:
why do you want to add extra params in the RequestParameters?
The use case is this. The request comes in with a URL like
/press/article/headline.html. I will take
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
Verbose VS Clarity, Clarity wins hands down.
2) How strongly
Recently, I had 2 memory related crashes of my Wicket app. Thanks to the
priceless -XX:+HeapDumpOnOutOfMemoryError option, I had a heap dump to look
at (one crash was due to a GC overhead exception, so no dump there). One
thing that immediately attracted my attention was that there were 116.917
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1679
Matej Knopp-2 wrote:
Hi,
about not removing the entries, can you please create jira issue? I
will try to look into it ASAP.
-Matej
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:38 AM, Stefan Fußenegger
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Recently, I had 2
I'm not sure what's wrong, but why not use the i18n feature?
Create a .properties file with name of the page that your label is located,
put it in the same folder of the page (like were you put the html).
The label should be something like this:
add( new Label( page.label, new ResourceModel(
I agree with Antoine.
Guðmundur Bjarni
Antoine van Wel wrote:
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
Why not just create a new wiki page? I like the idea too!
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
I've created a small wicket cheat sheet for issues and features, please see
here : http://www.flyupload.com/?fid=9436254
It's based on
so the problem is that you can get different messages?
if so, why not use isVisible() as Gabor suggested.
And for the String itself, why not use a utility that converts the message
to your liking?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:03 PM, wenm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks.
But still the lable will
Brill Pappin wrote:
Because deployment happens to a staging or production server, I simply set
the jvm startup params with -Dwicket.configuration=deployment.
It's also a possibility, i'll certainly ease of maven config a bit.
I also have a small block in my Application instance that
Thanks Eyal.
I have tried with resourceModel before, it works fine.
But my label only show the message when the web service returns error, not
constant showing. So it is not a good idea to use resourceModel.
--
View this message in context:
:) The problem is that I have to get different massages from properties file,
and then comes to my original question.
so the problem is that you can get different messages?
if so, why not use isVisible() as Gabor suggested.
And for the String itself, why not use a utility that converts the
ahh, a simple solution.. I guess it's nice with some graphics. But we
could do this as a combination I guess?
James Carman wrote:
Why not just create a new wiki page? I like the idea too!
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:33 AM, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi
Have we discussed *why* you're doing what you're doing? Perhaps
you're approaching the problem the wrong way. Care to share the
actual problem you're facing which caused you to choose this approach
with us?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:51 AM, wenm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:) The problem is that I
it seems it's just not enough adding the stuff to the profiles, do you
use the maven properties plugin aswell? or?
James Carman wrote:
Well, the test and prod profiles do have that property set to
deployment. The default properties just sets it to development.
On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 2:38
Maurice,
you were on the right track, thanks a lot! Some time ago I had defined the
authorization strategy as follows:
getSecuritySettings().setAuthorizationStrategy(new IAuthorizationStrategy()
{
...
public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class componentClass) {
if
:) The problem is that I have to get different massages from properties
file,
and then comes to my original question.
hmm i tried Chinese, Thais and some others.
But i never got a massage from a property file, how does that feel??
johan
Sure.
Maybe I need to explain more explicitly.
I will get the unique error code from web service if there is something
wrong. And then I would like to map the error codes to user-friendly
messages (which are in properties file), and show the messages conditionally
based on the error type in a
lol :) I haven't get it so far, so I don't know how's the properties'
massage.
mis-typing, sorry.
Johan Compagner wrote:
:) The problem is that I have to get different massages from properties
file,
and then comes to my original question.
hmm i tried Chinese, Thais and some others.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:01 AM, wenm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure.
Maybe I need to explain more explicitly.
I will get the unique error code from web service if there is something
wrong. And then I would like to map the error codes to user-friendly
messages (which are in properties file),
Exactly as James suggest and what I said earlier:
use something like this,
add( new Label( page.label, new ResourceModel( page.label ) );
Instead of 'page.label' do something like error.label.key#
where key# is what you get from the service.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:05 PM, James Carman [EMAIL
yup, it works.
But I would like to know the way to read the file, for studying and also
maybe future use.
jwcarman wrote:
Have you looked at org.apache.wicket.model.ResourceModel? You could do:
new Label(a, new ResourceModel(key1))
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:10 AM, wenm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yup, it works.
But I would like to know the way to read the file, for studying and also
maybe future use.
For future use, I'd suggest you look at the java.util.ResourceBundle
class. That will probably do what you are looking for.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it seems it's just not enough adding the stuff to the profiles, do you use
the maven properties plugin aswell? or?
Just adding the properties/profiles won't quite get it done. You need
to turn on
Hi everybody,
If I use this code :
BookmarkablePageLink lien_accueil = new
BookmarkablePageLink(accueil,
HomePage.class);
Label labelLinkAccueil = new Label
(name,getString(LabelLinkAccueil));
labelLinkAccueil.setEscapeModelStrings(false);
Make a model that does the getString in the getObject and give that
model to your label.
Maurice
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Fabien D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi everybody,
If I use this code :
BookmarkablePageLink lien_accueil = new
BookmarkablePageLink(accueil,
It's not telling you that you can't use it as a constructor param.
It's telling you that you're trying to use it during the constructor
code of your PanelMenu class. So, either move that code to
onBeforeRender or use a ResourceModel for your label.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Fabien D.
Hi,
Can any1 plz help me to understand how to use Spring with Wicket?...
i.e. 1. DAO?
Thanks
Samit
-
Samit :confused:
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Use-Spring-with-Wicket-tp17600138p17600138.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at
You can download (via SVN) and play with my example application:
http://svn.carmanconsulting.com/public/wicket-advanced/trunk
It includes the spring integration with DAOs, etc.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:27 AM, Samit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Can any1 plz help me to understand how to use
http://www.google.com/search?q=wicket+spring
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Samit [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Can any1 plz help me to understand how to use Spring with Wicket?...
i.e. 1. DAO?
Thanks
Samit
-
Samit :confused:
--
View this message in context:
I have tried, but I have the same warning
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/getString%2C-Label--%3E-Warn-tp17599949p17600229.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To
You tried what? Moving the code to onBeforeRender() or using ResourceModel?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:33 AM, Fabien D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have tried, but I have the same warning
--
View this message in context:
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
2) How strongly do you
Not a problem, you can turn that switch on at any time on the maven command
line, or in a profile (which also would likely require a command line
switch).
If you're a true test user, you can likely turn that on for only your unit
tests and/or set up an execution for surefire so the test are run
Why do you need the filtering?
- Brill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 8:14 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: maven deployment..?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:55 AM, Nino Saturnino
Sorry, I don't understand how to access the pdf from this link
-Original Message-
From: Nino Saturnino Martinez Vazquez Wael
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 4:34 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Wicket cheat sheet, solve your wicket problem fast?
Hi
The filtering replaces the maven properties in your templates. Take
a look at:
http://svn.carmanconsulting.com/public/wicket-advanced/trunk/src/main/resources/META-INF/beans.xml
That's my spring configuration file. All of the database settings,
the Wicket configurationType, etc. are all
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Ames, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, I don't understand how to access the pdf from this link
You probably need to scoll down - here, at least, the page seems to
have some info about the file, then a number of blank lines only
then the Download Now link
[ x ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
[ x ] Whatever choice ultimately made,
Do this instead:
BookmarkablePageLink lien_accueil = new BookmarkablePageLink(accueil,
HomePage.class);
Label labelLinkAccueil = new Label (name,new
ResourceModel(LabelLinkAccueil));
Regards,
Erik.
Fabien D. wrote:
Hi everybody,
If I use this code :
Help the Apache Wicket team to determine the future of your Wicket based web
application development. We have released our second milestone release of
our Java 5 based web framework and are anxious to receive feedback on our
use of generics. Download Wicket 1.4-m2 now and help us decide whether to
Duh, sorry to have bothered y'all :)
-Original Message-
From: Gwyn Evans [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:25 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: Wicket cheat sheet, solve your wicket problem fast?
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 1:59 PM, Ames, Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ahh, I see... I don't use spring so I don't have to replace anything :)
-Brill
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:01 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: maven deployment..?
The filtering
Hi,
I have a X web page and a login web page.
I did add below code in my application class, so when I access X page
without login, I will redirect to login page:
protected void init() {
super.init();
getSecuritySettings().setAuthorizationStrategy(new
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.
Component generification
why are you contradicting yourself?
To be honest I don't see the advantage of generic components, all I want is
to not have to do casting when I'm using models, .getModelObject() should
return the type that I put in, in a list view, if I give it a list of
strings I dont want to cast the listItem
no one???
taygolf wrote:
Hey guys. I have been playing with autocompletetextfield and I really like
it now that the ie bug is fixed with the 1.4 milestone. The only question
I have about it is how do I make the list visible all the time. Basically
I want the div to be visible all the
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Should be avoided, definitly. All this generics stuff is ruining my
wicket experience.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
--
View this message in context:
1) Generifying* Wicket
[X] Should be avoided, definitly. All this generics stuff is ruining my
wicket experience.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
--
View this message in context:
To use model and label ... I will try RessourceModel now
Thank you for your help
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/getString%2C-Label--%3E-Warn-tp17599949p17602329.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
No problem. Erik gave you exactly what you need.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM, Fabien D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To use model and label ... I will try RessourceModel now
Thank you for your help
--
View this message in context:
With the ModelRessource, it's working, thank you :) :)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/getString%2C-Label--%3E-Warn-tp17599949p17602394.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
ok maybe i misread this :
'Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
for instance) than static type checking.'
but those 2 sentences
1) Generifying* Wicket
[x] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
[x] I
Goes to show you that people have a tendency to reject things that they
do not understand rather than put in the effort :o)
-Original Message-
From: richardwilko [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:21 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM, richardwilko
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ok maybe i misread this :
'Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain
Ok you example doesnt work..
You will need to cast there
Then IModel only only helps describing the constructor. After that you loose
the generics or you have to ofcourse keep the models and dont work anymore
directly with the components
So if we only do IModel and not component
then this will
we havent done it yet because it is an API break. so we have been
waiting for wicket1.5/2.0 whatever to do this.
-igor
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:17 AM, atul singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can do that within a day or 2..(Meaning with the patch..).does any core
dev see an issue if info,debug
yes thats why i am against Referendums (politically) :)
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Hoover, William [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Goes to show you that people have a tendency to reject things that they
do not understand rather than put in the effort :o)
-Original Message-
From:
I think its not quite that simple.
Certainly both sets of components should use generics (silly to have a
partial solution) but how its done is vital so that it doesn't become a huge
mess.
I'm one of the adopters of the M1 release and I've found it quite difficult
to keep things straight
Nino makes a profit on every ad you accidently click on, trying to find the
correct download link ;-)
BTW, isn't the apache wiki having a Add diagram button now?
Frank
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:46 PM, Brill Pappin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It's there, but tiny and hidden in among the ads
I'd really like to know how it's ruining my wicket experience?
Can you please elaborate?
I agree that the M1 release of 1.4 was less than optimum, but not having
generics is annoying to people who have gotten used to using them.
- Brill Pappin
-Original Message-
From: mozvip
Clearly :)
However I think the wicket developers have to be careful here as doing wrong
will make a big mess :)
- Brill
-Original Message-
From: Hoover, William [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:27 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: RE: users, please give
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular objections against current state. I think before
we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
what's wrong
+1
-Original Message-
From: Brill Pappin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:49 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward*
+1
I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of James
Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* gotchas we
encounter and try to come up with a solution for them. My guess is
that we can do so.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Hoover, William [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
Hi Elco, hi Users,
first of all thanks a lot for trying generics in wicket in the first case.
I haven't really cared about em so far, too much. So thanks a lot for
the learning experience I'm going through right now.
[x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel
I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular objections against current state. I think before
we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not something
we can really do
I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward* generics.
Frankly I can't even see why its an issue at all, the language has evolved
and uses them... Why would Wicket not also use them its inline with the
current state of the language?
There is no reason that people who can't get their
On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:44:59PM -0700, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
1) Generifying* Wicket
[x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain
I see your point... a referendum will only be as good as the current
state of the product that is being evaluated, and the expertise of those
doing the evaluation. It seems as though in this case that some of those
doing the evaluation have limited knowledge of what benefits generics
has to offer
Hi Elco, hi Users,
first of all thanks a lot for trying generics in wicket in the first case.
I haven't really cared about em so far, too much. So thanks a lot for
the learning experience I'm going through right now.
[x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
IModel
1 - 100 of 206 matches
Mail list logo
