if we have a signature that accepts a raw type, will that also cause a
warning in user's code?
also having those suppress annotations practically _everywhere_ will be annoying
-igor
On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I dont care, because i cant do any thing with the ? The only thing it
> enforces is that it must now be a generic class which is annoying. Not
> to mention that in that area eclipse and javac accept different
> things....
>
> So or we in wicket dont use <?> any where and have supress warning
> everywhere for that or we do use it and then suddenly it is in my eyes
> restricted to much.
>
>
>
> On 5/14/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Johan Compagner wrote:
> > > yes thats the reason
> > >
> > > you are calling the method add with a generified component but that
> > > container itself is not generified
> > >
> > > i dont like this about generics expecially the onces like this:
> > >
> > > add(MarkupContainer<?> container)
> > >
> > > then suddenly a none generified component cant be added...
> > > thats really stupid <?> should mean anything.. including none generics
> >
> > No, that's not correct. For example, List<?> is much more restrictive
> > than a raw List (which is a List<Object>). To a raw list you can add an
> > instance of any type whatever, i.e., list.add(new Object()). But in
> > List<?> the ? is a wildcard which says it could be any type there, i.e.,
> > it could be a List<Integer>. But you can't add a new Object() to a
> > List<Integer>!
> >
> > Thus MarkupContainer<?> means "MarkupContainer parameterized by some
> > unknown type", and *not* MarkupContainer parameterized by Object, which
> > is what the raw type means.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Sebastiaan
> >
> > > johan
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 5:55 PM, Stefan Simik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have one idea,
> > >>
> > >> the reason of the warnigs is, that parent of AjaxPagingNavigator is
> > >> PagingNavigator,
> > >> which has parent Panel ---> that is not parameterized.
> > >>
> > >> The same problem is with LoopItem, which extends the
> > >> WebMarkupContainer ---> that is not parameterized.
> > >>
> > >> ? could this be the reason ?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Stefan Simik wrote:
> > >>> Mhmm, it is meaningful ;) I will know in future, thx
> > >>>
> > >>> One of the last occuring warning is, when working with
> > >>> MarkupContainer#add(...) or #addOrReplace(...) method.
> > >>>
> > >>> Example: I have a simple AjaxPagingNavigator, to which I add a simple
> > >>> ListView
> > >>> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >>> ListView<Integer> menu = new ListView<Integer>("id", numbers){
> > >>> //....populate metods
> > >>> }
> > >>> add(menu); //warning here
> > >>>
> > >>> The warning says:
> > >>> "Type safety: The method add(Component...) belongs to the raw type
> > >>> MarkupContainer.
> > >>> References to generic type MarkupContainer<T> should be parameterized"
> > >>>
> > >>> I cannot find out, what's the warning reason, because ListView self is
> > >>> parameterized.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> --
> > >> View this message in context:
> > >>
> >
> http://www.nabble.com/Using-generics-with-some-non-generic-classes-in-Wicket-tp17208928p17212015.html
> > >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> 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]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
