it does remove typesafety, it removed it completely (but a user doesnt know)
You can have a IModel<Integer> that doesnt have an integer at all And a user doesnt get a warning, doesnt do a cast (explicit by itself..) thats just really bad On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Martijn Dashorst < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joni's proposal doesn't remove typesafety - from a 1.3 stand point, it > becomes better. There is an arcane, and rather convoluted example that > allows one to generate class cast exceptions. > > Martijn > > On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Jonathan Locke > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I'm jumping into this conversation very late and I simply can't catch up > on > > this entire thread, but isn't it possible to have a non-generic build of > the > > generic framework for people that don't want to use generics? > > > > Skimming this discussion, in general, I tend to agree with Eelco. A good > > general approach would be to fully generify the framework and then vote > to > > back out the things which are really not helpful (for example, although > page > > is technically a component, pages often have no models, so it might be a > > good thing to a un-generify). Once we have found a practical/optimal > level > > of generification should we vote on it. Let's not throw the baby out with > > the bathwater. > > > > Also, for myself, I disagree that type safety is not a primary goal of > > generics. Even if the API were completely clear already, I'd still prefer > > more type safety. > > > > > > Martijn Dashorst 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] > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/%28Class%3C--extends-Page%3C-%3E%3E%29--casting-troubles-tp17355847p17375350.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] > > > > > > > > -- > 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] > >
