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