I'm likely missing something here, but why would you want to return something other than a *Page object? Wouldn't that cause some issues with the application?
Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "raw type". - Brill Pappin -----Original Message----- From: Sebastiaan van Erk [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:53 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket James Carman wrote: > I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now. Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really about generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS). One of the gotcha's I think is the getHomePage() signature... public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> getHomePage(); This breaks raw types (you can't return raw home page). I don't see any way out of this one without making the getHomePage() signature incorrect (i.e., you can't make it a generic method, which was used to solve the problem where a method argument had the type Class<? extends Page<?>>). Regards, Sebastiaan > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Sounds like a good idea... Are you going to create it? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Behalf Of James Carman >> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:06 AM >> To: users@wicket.apache.org >> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on >> generics with Wicket >> >> Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* "gotchas" we >> encounter and try to come up with a solution for them. My guess is >> that we can do so. >> >> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:03 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. >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> On Behalf Of James Carman >>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM >>> To: users@wicket.apache.org >>> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take >>> on generics with Wicket >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see >>>> anyone having any particular objections against current state. I >>>> think before we even think of (partially) reverting generics we >>>> have to discuss what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but >>>> that's not something we can really do about) with current state. I >>>> use wicket with generics daily and I don't see any particular show >>>> stopper so far. >>>> >>> +1, I agree. I think this discussion might be counter-productive if >>> folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting. >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> - 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] >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
