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]

Reply via email to