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]
