getModel() i agree, but getModelObject() is something that is used the most
if i have to guess.
Because in an onSubmit() of a form or a onClick of a Link what do most of
you do?
onSubmit()
{
dao.save(getModelObject())
}
onClick()
{
dao.delete(getModelObject())
}
johan
On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:05 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Although I'm not sure how many people call getModel/getModelObject
> anyway. I think it's mostly about ListItems etc an i doubt anyone
> would subclass it just because of getModel/getModelObject...
>
> -Matej
>
> On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > 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]
>
>
