i guess my question is: if you have a list and you are never going to put anything inside it, do you think a generic type is still useful? there are plenty of usecases where component's default model slot is not used, so why do we have to generify it? even if the mix is 50/50 that means 50% is complete noise...
verbousity might not be wicket's problem, but using a verbose api sucks. generics fit for collections because there is never a case where you would want a collection without putting/getting something out of it. -igor On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:48 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Jeremy Thomerson > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Basically, my feeling remains the same - generics are part of Java, so Java >> programmers are going to have to get use to them. They are very valuable >> when you need them. We just have to be careful that we implement them the >> right way. Let's document very well the pain points on the wiki (and >> verbosity isn't Wicket's pain point - it's java's). > > +1. I've already added a couple of pain points to the wiki. Please > feel free to add your own specific examples of where you think > generics has made the code difficult. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
