If you use more than one type of model for a given component I would hardly say that it is only a fraction of the time. Do you use only one type of model on all your components? :o)
The use of Void is not an obscure workaround. Why do you think they have it? I think it's intent is very clear if you understand what void represents. The key point is that Java generics are not runtime generics ;o) -----Original Message----- From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:37 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket Hi Matej, > Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on > day-to-day basis. well, I did, and it really doesn't looked nice (and it doesn't work as it should in the end, but that's another story). The main point is (repeatedly) ignored by the people who are 'pro' generics: Why do you have to put generics on Components, when need is only in a fraction of cases? Discussing the possibility of <Void> is somewhat an obscure workaround. It's just boilerplate in more than 70% (of my cases), and this boilerplate gets repeated over and over again with each assignment. Best regards, --- Jan. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
