Re: (Class>) casting troubles

[Daniel Walmsley]

Just to quickly weigh in on the verbosity argument: As someone who has coded Java (and Perl, C++, etc) in every environment from individual projects to multinational finance systems, I will say that verbosity of code runs a far, far, distant third (or twentieth) to: 1. Readability/Understandability, and 2. Maintainability By illustrating succinctly what type of model (if any) a component will contain, generics in Wicket neatly accomplish point 1. By allowing your IDE to tell you when you're setting the wrong type of model object in a component it neatly accomplishes point 2. You write your code once. You maintain it thousands of times. The trade-off to me is perfectly clear, and this will be vindicated when Wicket-based enterprise projects start conspicuously succeeding where others have failed. Also, don't mistake "verbosity" for "DRY-ness". COBOL was verbose because it forced you to repeat yourself over and over. Java supports very elegant reuse, so each piece of functionality is written just once. Thanks to Annotations we've cut down (significantly) on boilerplate, and the whole appeal of Wicket is its ability to enable reuse at the web tier. Between generics, annotations and component reuse, this makes Wicket a very DRY-friendly framework, and has vastly reduced the amount of code I've had to cut for my clients. I've used every framework under the sun (no pun intended) and Wicket rules over them all. Cheers, Dan On 22/05/2008, at 07:20AM, Jonathan Locke 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] Daniel Walmsley Director, Firesyde e: [EMAIL PROTECTED] m: +61404864141