yeah we need to do that then. But after that you loose the generification completely So the constructors are the "Documented" nothing more.
But getModel will have a warning then and getModelObject() always will return an object. johan On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:05 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about generifying the DDC constructor and not the class itself? > > public <T> DropDownChoice(String id, IModel<List<T>> choices, > IModel<T> selectedValue); > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Martijn Dashorst > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Before we do a vote I want to make sure what our alternatives are. > > > > I still like Joni's alternative. I don't think they are an > > abomination, because the /potential/ class cast exception you get is > > the same as with current 1.3. But the benefit of documenting the model > > parameters in DDC, LV, etc. is HUGE. > > > > I really appreciate the time and effort that went into implementing > > the generification. But I also see what kind of mess this brought and > > I really don't like the Component generification part. > > > > Martijn > > > > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> ok so we pretty much have some core people wanting to back out the > >> generics support. > >> > >> shall we start a vote? johan, gerolf and i have spent a ridiculous > >> amount of time trying to generify the codebase and remove all the > >> shitty warnings. if there is even a slight chance of this getting > >> backed out i do not want to spend any more time on this until the > >> issue is resolved. > >> > >> also we should halt m2 until this is resolved. > >> > >> personally i do not mind backing out generics, they turned out to be > >> quiet a disappointment for me as well, but my feelings about this are > >> not strong. > >> > >> we can still use generics such as setresponsepage(class<? extends > >> page>) to gain bits of typesafety here and there, but if we remove > >> them from component we obviously have to remove them from imodel. > >> > >> so lets start a vote with a parallel discussion thread just for this. > >> > >> -igor > >> > >> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:19 AM, Martijn Dashorst > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >>>> Generics is type safety > >>> > >>> I didn't say generics isn't type safety. But APPLYING generics for the > >>> Wicket framework API *ISN'T* its primary goal. API clarity *IS*. Less > >>> questions on the mailing list regarding DDC, ListView, etc. is the > >>> main goal for applying generics in Wicket. > >>> > >>>> I am against this abuse big time -1000 from me > >>> > >>> I'm -1000000000000000^1000000000000 for abusing my eyes and brain in > >>> the way it currently is implemented in Wicket. It is completely and > >>> utterly unusable for beginners. There is no way this is going to make > >>> the number of questions on the mailinglist less (other than by scaring > >>> away anyone that wants to actually use the framework) > >>> > >>> 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] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
