as i said. any generified use of CompoundPropertyModel is gone Also if you make getModel() return a normal IModel that is of raw type i think you get warnings everywhere again... and i think only suppresswarnings will help those Because if yo do
IModel<String> stringModel = (IModel<String>)component.getModel(); that will generate a warning as far as i know. and i guess if you dont cast: IModel stringModel = component.getModel(); will also generate a warning? i am not sure because i see so many. But there you use IModel that is a generic type as a raw type.. i still think dropping it from component we could drop it also from model Because the only thing we gain that is that for a few classes the Api is more clear (DropDown and ListView) But for the rest it doesnt bring almost anything. No type safety pretty much anywhere. johan On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:53 AM, Martijn Dashorst < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That is not my problem. The problem is that Component<T> is confusing > as hell and opens up the box of pandorra wrt generics. I *like* > IModel<T> but I fail to see how setResponsePage(<? extends <? extends > <?>>>) is necessary for this. The only reason iirc to generify > component is to remove the casts for these two methods: > > IModel getModel() > Object getModelObject() > > I can live with having these methods not being generified. > > Martijn > > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:36 AM, Peter Ertl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Maybe this can help a little: > > http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6384510 > > (verified with java 1.5 on mac os x leopard) > > > > > > Am 21.05.2008 um 11:13 schrieb Martijn Dashorst: > > > >> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> if we drop that then we can pretty much drop also model > >> > >> Not sure. I think having Component(String id, IModel<T> model) is a > >> good thing. However, generifying Component further to get rid of the > >> cast when doing getModelObject() or getModel() turns out not to be > >> great. > >> > >>> Because the model goes into the Component and gone is the generified > >>> model. > >> > >> I don't have a direct problem with that. The generics of Component are > >> really hard on the eye and the brain. We are trying to make things > >> simpler and clearer. Having Component(String id, IModel<T> model) > >> makes things clearer. > >> > >>> For example the DropDownChoice that is generified now makes sure that i > >>> have > >>> a lot less explaining to on this list.. > >> > >> Yes, I am not in favor of dropping DDC(String, IModel<T>, > >> IModel<List<? extends T>>). I am in favor of dropping the generics > >> from the Component class definition. > >> > >> > >> Martijn > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > > > > > > > > -- > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst > Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3 > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
