I'm afraid my friends at Sun don't have enough influence. Type erasure seemed
like a horrible idea from the start and about 1 million people were saying
this. What can you really do to improve anything when you give input and
people just go ahead and make god-awful decisions like that one?


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-tp17355847p17381814.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]

Reply via email to