Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
The outcome of this statement is unclear... Should the IWrapModel go?
It is still there (woogle is down, so I can't search the irc logs, to
find if there was a conclusion)
Martijn
On 6/22/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
johan, you are back?
my gut tells me we should start with IModel and then if we run into a
situation that realy really requires us to know about the wrapper we should
introduce iwrapmodel back.
-Igor
On 6/22/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no compound is inheritable
And i still don't know if that should really returns a IWrapModel thing or
just a IModel
The question is do we really need to know if it is a wrap model in some
cases.
Don't know.
johan
On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw., ICompoundModel is no longer used, is it?
Matej Knopp wrote:
public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT
{
C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);
}
But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited
models.
-Matej
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you can
do without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods,
and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in a
lot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better.
Eelco
On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel.
Anyone objects?
-Matej
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
+1 for 2.0
less is more.
Martijn
On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics
are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we
remove
getNestedModel, we should also remove
wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component ) and
wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation.
Eelco
On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate
interface
because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we
need it
period so removing it completely is also an option imho
thoughts?
-igor
On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of
IWrapModel is
slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the
question :)
Matej Knopp wrote:
Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing
as
getWrappedModel).
Matej Knopp wrote:
Hi,
I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that
now we
have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel().
Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of
IWrapModel?
-Matej
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and
Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat
certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications
in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
i don't think we can remove it completely. At specific points i have to know if the modeli have now in the componet is a wrap model so that i can do things or call the getNestedModel()that method getNestedModel() can be removed from IModel if it where me and added to IWrapModel
johanOn 9/15/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The outcome of this statement is unclear... Should the IWrapModel go?It is still there (woogle is down, so I can't search the irc logs, tofind if there was a conclusion)MartijnOn 6/22/06, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: johan, you are back? my gut tells me we should start with IModel and then if we run into a situation that realy really requires us to know about the wrapper we should
introduce iwrapmodel back. -Igor On 6/22/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: no compound is inheritable
And i still don't know if that should really returns a IWrapModel thing or just a IModel The question is do we really need to know if it is a wrap model in some cases. Don't know.
johan On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Btw., ICompoundModel is no longer used, is it?
Matej Knopp wrote: public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT { C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);
} But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited models. -Matej Eelco Hillenius wrote:
getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you can do without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods, and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in a
lot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better. Eelco On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel. Anyone objects?
-Matej Martijn Dashorst wrote: +1 for 2.0 less is more.
Martijn On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove
getNestedModel, we should also remove wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component ) and wicket.Component#sameRootModel
(IModel) and update the documentation. Eelco On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we
need it period so removing it completely is also an option imho thoughts?
-igor On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the
question :) Matej Knopp wrote: Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing
as getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi,
I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel().
Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej
___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and
Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642 ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications
in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
Perhaps I'm suffering from late night drowziness, but if I look at
ResourceModel, I don't see the need for wrapping the object.
The assignment is purely for getting the component. I think a better
interface name would be INeedMyComponentModel.
So resourcemodel.wrapOnAssignment(Component component) would become:
public void wrapOnAssignment(Component component) {
setComponent(component);
}
This saves the extra model (== memory). But I might be wrong of course.
Martijn
On 9/15/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't think we can remove it completely. At specific points i have to know
if the model
i have now in the componet is a wrap model so that i can do things or call
the getNestedModel()
that method getNestedModel() can be removed from IModel if it where me and
added to IWrapModel
johan
On 9/15/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The outcome of this statement is unclear... Should the IWrapModel go?
It is still there (woogle is down, so I can't search the irc logs, to
find if there was a conclusion)
Martijn
On 6/22/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
johan, you are back?
my gut tells me we should start with IModel and then if we run into a
situation that realy really requires us to know about the wrapper we
should
introduce iwrapmodel back.
-Igor
On 6/22/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no compound is inheritable
And i still don't know if that should really returns a IWrapModel thing or
just a IModel
The question is do we really need to know if it is a wrap model in some
cases.
Don't know.
johan
On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw., ICompoundModel is no longer used, is it?
Matej Knopp wrote:
public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT
{
C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);
}
But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited
models.
-Matej
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you
can
do without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods,
and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in
a
lot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better.
Eelco
On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel.
Anyone objects?
-Matej
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
+1 for 2.0
less is more.
Martijn
On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the
semantics
are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we
remove
getNestedModel, we should also remove
wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component ) and
wicket.Component#sameRootModel (IModel) and update the
documentation.
Eelco
On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate
interface
because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure
we
need it
period so removing it completely is also an option imho
thoughts?
-igor
On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of
IWrapModel is
slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the
question :)
Matej Knopp wrote:
Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such
thing
as
getWrappedModel).
Matej Knopp wrote:
Hi,
I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed
that
now we
have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel().
Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of
IWrapModel?
-Matej
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
what would happen if you share that model over more then one component?(like you do with compoundmodel by default, i agree with resource on assigment is it maybe a bit different but doesn't have to be)johan
On 9/15/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps I'm suffering from late night drowziness, but if I look atResourceModel, I don't see the need for wrapping the object.The assignment is purely for getting the component. I think a betterinterface name would be INeedMyComponentModel.
So resourcemodel.wrapOnAssignment(Component component) would become:public void wrapOnAssignment(Component component) {setComponent(component);}This saves the extra model (== memory). But I might be wrong of course.
MartijnOn 9/15/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i don't think we can remove it completely. At specific points i have to know if the model
i have now in the componet is a wrap model so that i can do things or call the getNestedModel() that method getNestedModel() can be removed from IModel if it where me and added to IWrapModel
johan On 9/15/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The outcome of this statement is unclear... Should the IWrapModel go?
It is still there (woogle is down, so I can't search the irc logs, to find if there was a conclusion) Martijn On 6/22/06, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: johan, you are back? my gut tells me we should start with IModel and then if we run into a situation that realy really requires us to know about the wrapper we
should introduce iwrapmodel back. -Igor On 6/22/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: no compound is inheritable And i still don't know if that should really returns a IWrapModel thing or just a IModel The question is do we really need to know if it is a wrap model in some
cases. Don't know. johan On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw., ICompoundModel is no longer used, is it?Matej Knopp wrote:public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT{
C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);} But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited
models. -Matej Eelco Hillenius wrote:getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you
cando without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods,and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in alot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better.
Eelco On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel.Anyone objects? -Matej
Martijn Dashorst wrote:+1 for 2.0 less is more.
Martijn On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semanticsare great, and they are covered through other means now. If we
removegetNestedModel, we should also removewicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component ) and
wicket.Component#sameRootModel (IModel) and update the documentation. Eelco
On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate
interfacebecause not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need itperiod so removing it completely is also an option imho
thoughts? -igor
On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel isslightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the
question :) Matej Knopp wrote:Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such
thing asgetWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote:
Hi, I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed
that now wehave IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel(). Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of
IWrapModel?-Matej
___Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop___Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop___
Wicket-develop mailing listWicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing listWicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
+1 for 2.0 less is more. Martijn On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove getNestedModel, we should also remove wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component) and wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation. Eelco On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need it period so removing it completely is also an option imho thoughts? -igor On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question :) Matej Knopp wrote: Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi, I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel(). Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop -- Download Wicket 1.2 now! Write Ajax applications without touching JavaScript! -- http://wicketframework.org All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642 ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel. Anyone objects? -Matej Martijn Dashorst wrote: +1 for 2.0 less is more. Martijn On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove getNestedModel, we should also remove wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component) and wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation. Eelco On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need it period so removing it completely is also an option imho thoughts? -igor On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question :) Matej Knopp wrote: Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi, I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel(). Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642 ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT
{
C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);
}
But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited models.
-Matej
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you can
do without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods,
and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in a
lot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better.
Eelco
On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel.
Anyone objects?
-Matej
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
+1 for 2.0
less is more.
Martijn
On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics
are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove
getNestedModel, we should also remove
wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component) and
wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation.
Eelco
On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface
because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need it
period so removing it completely is also an option imho
thoughts?
-igor
On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is
slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question :)
Matej Knopp wrote:
Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as
getWrappedModel).
Matej Knopp wrote:
Hi,
I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we
have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel().
Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of
IWrapModel?
-Matej
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
Btw., ICompoundModel is no longer used, is it?
Matej Knopp wrote:
public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT
{
C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);
}
But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited models.
-Matej
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you can
do without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods,
and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in a
lot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better.
Eelco
On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel.
Anyone objects?
-Matej
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
+1 for 2.0
less is more.
Martijn
On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics
are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove
getNestedModel, we should also remove
wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component) and
wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation.
Eelco
On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface
because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need
it
period so removing it completely is also an option imho
thoughts?
-igor
On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is
slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question
:)
Matej Knopp wrote:
Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as
getWrappedModel).
Matej Knopp wrote:
Hi,
I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now
we
have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel().
Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of
IWrapModel?
-Matej
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
no compound is inheritableAnd i still don't know if that should really returns a IWrapModel thing or just a IModelThe question is do we really need to know if it is a wrap model in some cases.Don't know.
johanOn 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw., ICompoundModel is no longer used, is it?Matej Knopp wrote: public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT { C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);
} But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited models. -Matej Eelco Hillenius wrote: getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you can
do without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods, and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in a lot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better.
Eelco On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel.
Anyone objects? -Matej Martijn Dashorst wrote: +1 for 2.0 less is more.
Martijn On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics
are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove getNestedModel, we should also remove wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component
) and wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation. Eelco On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need it
period so removing it completely is also an option imho thoughts?-igor
On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is
slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question :) Matej Knopp wrote: Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as
getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi,
I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel().
Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej
___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642 ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642 ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-developAll the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications inthe hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642___Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.nethttps://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
johan, you are back?my gut tells me we should start with IModel and then if we run into a situation that realy really requires us to know about the wrapper we should introduce iwrapmodel back.-Igor
On 6/22/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
no compound is inheritableAnd i still don't know if that should really returns a IWrapModel thing or just a IModelThe question is do we really need to know if it is a wrap model in some cases.Don't know.
johanOn 6/22/06, Matej Knopp
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Btw., ICompoundModel is no longer used, is it?Matej Knopp wrote: public interface IInheritableModelT extends IModelT { C IModelC wrapOnInhertance(ComponentC component);
} But maybe it makes sense to have a Marker interface for inherited models. -Matej Eelco Hillenius wrote: getNestedModel was what we plussed on, right? I'm not sure how you can
do without IWrapModel though. It's used in several wrapOnxx methods, and it's used to keep the parameterized type. I didn't look at it in a lot of detail though, so Igor/ Johan will know that better.
Eelco On 6/22/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: I also think we should get rid of getNestedModel and IWrapModel.
Anyone objects? -Matej Martijn Dashorst wrote: +1 for 2.0 less is more.
Martijn On 6/21/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics
are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove getNestedModel, we should also remove wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component
) and wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation. Eelco On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface
because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need it
period so removing it completely is also an option imho thoughts?-igor
On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote: I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is
slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question :) Matej Knopp wrote: Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as
getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi,
I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel().
Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej
___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___
Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk! Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in
the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642
___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642 ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications in the hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=107521bid=248729dat=121642 ___ Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
All the advantages of Linux Managed Hosting--Without the Cost and Risk!
Fully trained technicians. The highest number of Red Hat certifications inthe hosting industry. Fanatical Support. Click to learn more
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi, I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel(). Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question :) Matej Knopp wrote: Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi, I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel(). Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
Re: [Wicket-develop] Model change in 2.0
If we can can rid of it, all the better. I don't think the semantics are great, and they are covered through other means now. If we remove getNestedModel, we should also remove wicket.Component#sameRootModel(wicket.Component) and wicket.Component#sameRootModel(IModel) and update the documentation. Eelco On 6/21/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i am also thinking of moving getNestedModel into a separate interface because not all models have nested models, and im not even sure we need it period so removing it completely is also an option imho thoughts? -igor On 6/21/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm looking bit deeper and it seems that the semantics of IWrapModel is slightly different than I though, so just silently ignore the question :) Matej Knopp wrote: Sorry, I meant getNestedModel of course (as there's no such thing as getWrappedModel). Matej Knopp wrote: Hi, I'm going through the big model change in 2.0 and I noticed that now we have IWrapModel, but IModel still contains getWrappedModel(). Wouldn't it be cleaner if the getWrappedModel was a member of IWrapModel? -Matej ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop ___ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
