Well, maybe it really is a hack that's too ugly. We might have two methods,
default getModel() that doesn't cast it and alternative convenience
one that does.
-Matej
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> class Component {
> private IModel<?> model;
>
> public <T> IModel<T> getModel() {
> return (IModel<T>) model;
> }
> }
>
> I like this. Even with the possible class cast exception. Because
> without generics, it doesn't leave you no other option than to cast it
> to your model, which isn't much better either, as you get the same
> result except that it looks uglier.
>
> -Matej
>
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> no i am really against that falls <V> IModel<V> getModel() method
>> that really abuses everything that generics stands for. For such a basic
>> thing.
>> this is really bad programming
>> If we drop it we also pretty much drop it from IModel or have warnings in
>> the user code.
>>
>> But then drop it completely is better because then we have to do a cast and
>> you really think about that
>> Not having that fake assurance..
>>
>> johan
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:53 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]
