Jonathan Locke wrote:
>
> Personally, I don't see this use of Void as something even remotely close
> to a reason to scrap it. I would happily use that construct every day. But
> that's just me.
>
I completely agree with this and have found that specifying Void actually
makes me a lot more conscious about the roll of the model. I find it
invaluable to have Eclipse quickfix "assign to local variable" automatically
with the correct type from getModelObject(). Would be a terrible shame to
lose this.
Scrapping it on a case by case basis seems to make the most sense. Is Link
one of these cases? It is *normally* used without a model. For such common
cases it is easy to create a non-generic subclass. What is the problem with
that?
Is it possible to use a generic base class for users that want to have a
type safe model like:
class Link extends LinkGeneric<Void>
{
}
LinkGeneric<T>
{
}
The generic base class could be used in core components.
John
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/%28Class%3C--extends-Page%3C-%3E%3E%29--casting-troubles-tp17355847p17446015.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]
