It is. If you haven't noticed, about a bazillion folks around the world are discarding Java because of its verbosity. Having to type Link<Void>("link") {} really makes it harder to comprehend. Why does the link need a type? It is not needed. what is not needed doesn't need to be specified. Period.
Martijn On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 1:45 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jan Kriesten wrote: >> >> hi johan, >> >>> But if you have a lot of Link<Void> for you cases >>> then make 1 simple subclass of Link >> >> so anyone make your own wrapper to get readable sources again? let me >> think: how many webmarkupcontainer, link, page etc. classes do i use with >> void? >> >> i don't think that's a serious option. > > While Link<Void> is somewhat more verbose than Link, I seriously think that > people are making too big a deal out of it. Is Link<Void> really that > unreadable? Is it really that hard to code? Personally I think *adds* to the > clarity; it says you're not going to use the model of the Link component. > > Regards, > Sebastiaan > >> --- jan. >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]