page was not yet generified in m1, which is what i assume you are using. 1.4m2 will be out shortly where this has been corrected, and you can always use a snapshot.
-igor On Sun, May 18, 2008 at 3:14 PM, Frits Jalvingh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello there, > > I'm a Wicket Virgin (hm ;-) and have just started to look at Wicket 1.4. It > seems something is wrong with the generics changes there. I have a page which > itself has a model: a CompoundPropertyModel<SomeClass>. Most basic Wicket > components are generic: things like Label need a type parameter specifying > the model (which by the way makes for very verbose coding). But the whole > Page hierarchy gets defined hard as a MarkupContainer<Object>. This renders > the setModel() calls on Page unusable because they in turn also expect > IModel<Object>'s, and not IModel<? extends Object>. This makes it impossible > to pass any Model into a Page-derived object without making use of a complex > cast: > > setModel((IModel<Object>) (Object) new CompoundPropertyModel<BuilderState>( > bs)); > > This only works because of the utterly idiotic way that Generics are > implemented in Java (type erasure; usability erasure would be a better name > 8-(), and even there you need to watch out: Eclipse will silently remove the > above cast and then generate a compilation error 8-( > > It looks like thinks like Page should also be generic (which looks like > crap)... > > Or I'm doing something wrong, of course ;-) > > Frits > > -- > DRM: Digital Restrictions Management -- learn about the dangers at > http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
