Johan Compagner schrieb:
i think that is grown this way, previously the model constructor did some
more i believe
Also i don't like this(id,null) because thats just horrible, If you call the
constructor with the model then the model shouldn't be null.
a nicer way could be
public Component(final String id, IModel model)
{
this(id);
this.model = wrapModel(model);
}
hmmm... that would go against my taste of chaining from the constructor
with the least parameters to the constructor with the most parameters.
I'd just tend to chose the constructor with the most complex signature
as the default constructor, doing the 'real' construction part of the
object construction and the others chained towards it, using default or
null values.
Though if I'd see something like above, I wouldn't pick on it, at least
not in public :-)
Martin
johan
On 8/23/07, Martin Funk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
doing a little code reading and trying to understand what I read, I came
across org.apache.wicket.Component 's constructors.
To my eyes the two constructors look very much alike and I wonder why
they were not chained like this:
public Component(final String id)
{
this(id, null);
}
Which chapter in the Java schoolbook should I reread?
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
