Hold on there... Why would you suppress warnings? I think I must miss the point of it because I don't *ever* want an API to decide what warnings I should and shouldn't see.
-Brill Pappin -----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:05 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket I agree with the Class<? extends Page> with @SuppressWarnings in the framework code. It makes it easier, and there's no drawback either way. Jeremy On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Martin Funk > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Hi Sebastiann, > > > > just for clarifying my understanding of the vocabulary: > > > > A_HomePage extends WebPage > > and > > B_HomePage extends WebPage<Void> > > are both non-generified java classes. > > > No the last one is generified.. > The first one is a raw type. > > > > > > > > > > Esp. if the signature of 'public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> > > getHomePage();' stays that way the HomePage can't be generified. > > > > > No as far as i can see, the home page MUST be generified thats the > whole problem with that constructo What would happen if we did: > > public abstract Class<? extends Page> > > and have a supresswarning in our code. > > johanm > -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
