Can we put together a wiki page listing and categorizing/prioritizing concrete examples of all the known generics issues in all of these threads and discussions? I'm having a hard time getting a handle on what things are real problems and what things are stylist objections to "verbosity" (lack of type inference, mainly). Most of the things I've seen so far don't strike me as actual problems. For example, while declaring a form as Form<Void> when it has no model is a bit more typing, it's actually quite correct. I even kind of like that as it is self-documenting.
Johan Compagner wrote: > > its funny that you say that about the pages. > > That Page was ungenerified in 1.4M1 and what did we get? > Complains.. Why isnt it generified an we have it? > multiply questions.. So not one but many asking that same thing. > > So people do use it... > > But jon, cant you not go to Sun you have still some friends there > and give Wicket as an example so that they can improve the generics so > that > it is nicer to have in this example??? :) > > The problem is if we backout stuff. it could be that sun will make it > better > less verbose with java 7... > So then it will solve it self.. Dont say that it will happen but it can > > johan > > > > 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] >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%28Class%3C--extends-Page%3C-%3E%3E%29--casting-troubles-tp17355847p17381040.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]
