+1 I think that's the right thing to do... No point making it so rigid.
- Brill Pappin -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of James Carman Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:13 PM 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 12:11 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A raw type is a parameterized type in which the type parameters are > not filled in, i.e., new HashMap() (instead of new HashMap<String, Integer>()). > > Just try to return one of your old (non-generified) HomePage.class > classes (i.e., HomePage extends WebPage instead of HomePage extends > WebPage<Void>) in your WebApplication's getHomePage() method, and you > will see that it does not compile. There is a section on the wiki addressing this now. I would propose that whenever referring to "class objects that represent Page subclasses" we use Class<? extends Page> rather than Class<? extends Page<?>>. This allows us to specify that it has to be a page class, but it doesn't make the page class have to be generified. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
