On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>>
>> then our users have to suppress warnings in their code, which is
>> unacceptable at least to me. the whole generics thing turned out to be
>> quiet a lot crappier then i thought it would.
>
> I actually like having the generics better than not having it. In both cases
> sometimes it's a pain: generics is verbose, non-generics you have to use
> typecasts all the time and a bunch of errors are delayed to runtime.
maybe it is just me, but i dont remember the last time i got a class
cast exception when casting down the model object. i write wicket code
every day. but i will say that imodel<user> is definetely a huge
improvement/benefit.
> What I don't really understand is, if you don't like generics, why can't you
> just tell the compiler to ignore the warnings? I mean, in Java 5 generics is
> just not really "optional", not in the JDK libs either - if you ignore
> generics there you get warnings as well; so there too, it's the user's
> burden to bear.
i do like generics. did i ever say otherwise? the problem here is that
if we scope something as Class<? extends Component> then even though
you ARE using generics in your code you will still get a warning
because we did not scope the class as Class<? extends Component<?>>.
on the other hand if we do scope it as Class<? extends Component<?>>
then you can no longer pass a raw reference when calling the function.
so we are screwed if we do and we are screwed if we dont, i expected
generics to be better.
> And especially if you look at the vote result, I think the majority wants
> the generics...
that vote was before we uncovered this issue. we voted on the idea of
generics, not on the implementation.
-igor
>
> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:48 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> yes then all the call to that method must be of a generic type.
>>> cant be raw
>>>
>>> i dont know what are we going to do in wicket i think we should decide it
>>> should we just where we dont care about generic delete/not use the <?>
>>> and
>>> then
>>> supresswarning?
>>>
>>> johan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> so i just implemented IAuthorizationStrategy and on this line in my
>>>> class:
>>>>
>>>> public boolean isInstantiationAuthorized(Class< ? extends Component>
>>>> componentClass)
>>>>
>>>> i get: Component is a raw type. References to generic type
>>>> Component<T> should be parameterized
>>>>
>>>> so that means we have to change our sig to <? extends Component<?>>
>>>> but then we are back to the problem described in this thread.
>>>>
>>>> generics suck.
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 12:12 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I dont think that user gets a warning if a param is of raw type. But
>>>>> we have a warning there.
>>>>> The problem is that for example MarkupContainer.add(Component) or
>>>>> IVisitor.visit(Component) i dont care what component is put in
>>>>> generified or not.
>>>>> In add it really doesnt matter because we dont do anything with it.
>>>>> With visitor it is different because the user could use it inside the
>>>>> method. But it should be useable without warnings for generified and
>>>>> none generfied components..
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/14/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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]
>>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
