Ahhh... there's a good starting point for the gotchas...
I agree. It is not a big issue to use Void when needed.
I doubt anyone would be using something like Class<? extends Page<?
extends IModel<T>>> unless they themselves are attempting to extend a
generic component that they want to extend its generic capabilities.
Anyone that doesn't want to use the complete generic signature does not
have to ("MyPage extends Page<SomeModel>" and "Class<? extends MyPage>"
or "Class<MyPage>"). That's the nice thing... It's up to the user.
-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Swank [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:11 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
Agreed. I don't see a problem with having to type Link<Void> or
Page<Void> instead of Link/Page. That's simply the way that generics
are implemented in Java. Are there places in the API where an end user
would have to type something like Class<? extends Page<? extends
IModel<T>>>? That way madness lies, however I haven't seen anything
like that in 1.4M1 (I'll let you know about M2 later today).
So unless I'm missing something pretty beafy, which I don't see here:
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/generics.html
I just don't see the problem with the current direction.
Cheers,
Scott
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> +1
> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
> that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
