I would all be easier if getModel() and getModelObject() weren't
final. (I know there's a reason why they are, I'm not questioning it).
Then in your component subclass you coud do IModel<Integer> getModel()
{ return (IModel<Integer>)super.getModel() }, similiar with
getmodelobject so you wouldn't have casts all over places and it would
be safer too).
-Matej
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:39 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It isnt all or nothing.. i never said that
>
> I just say if you dont want Component but you do want IModel
> then you will get a warning at getModel()
> we as a framework shouldnt hide the warning at that call.
>
> But i am also curious how many people get really the model back from a
> component (not counting specific places like repeaters.onpopuplate)
>
> because i think most people do component.getModelObject() which then needs a
> cast
>
> But i like that extra helper method way more then having an extra
> getUnsafeModel() method..
> because thats explicit a developer has to really choose for it.
>
> i think there are 3 options
>
> 1> keep it what we have now, tweak it with the feedback we get from 1.4M2
> 2> drop it on Component only and have a class like you described above to do
> this: IModel<String> model = Unsafe.cast(component.getModel()); (its still
> a hack and a sense of false security but ok. if people really want this..)
> 3> drop it on Component and Model
>
>
> i am +1 on 1
> and -0 on 2 and 3
>
> I still think it is not bad. and you can come around it really easy by just
> creating a few extra classes like
>
> StringLabel
> NumberLabel
> StringTextField
> NumberTextField
>
> if you only have a few of those extra all your code is cleanup
>
> johan
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 9:12 AM, Joni Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Yeah, it could even be in its separate utility class:
>>
>> interface IModel<T> {}
>>
>> class Component {
>> private IModel<?> model;
>>
>> public IModel<?> getModel() {
>> return model;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> public class Unsafe {
>> public static <T> IModel<T> cast(IModel<?> model) {
>> return (IModel<T>) model;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> class MyComp extends Component {
>> public MyComp() {
>> IModel<Integer> model = Unsafe.cast(getModel());
>> }
>> }
>>
>> I'm merely pointing out that there exists a solution to do unsafe cast
>> without getting compiler warning. Just like normal casts are handled.
>>
>> I don't think Johan's all or nothing proposition is very pragmatic one.
>> Without generic IModel we do not get any API discoverability and our
>> APIs continue to suck. For instance, how can API user know what kind of
>> model this needs: MyJuicyComponent(String id, IModel model). At one
>> point we did this: MyJuicyComponent(String id, IModel/*<Chocolate>*/
>> model) but this convention is far from optimal. To be sure, one needs to
>> browse the sources...
>>
>> Joni
>>
>> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 22:19 +0200, Matej Knopp wrote:
>> > 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]
>> >
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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]
