and if i store it in metadata ;)
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > why even have an interface? just detach all imodel fields via reflection! > > -igor > > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:37 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Eelco Hillenius > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> it all depends, on how and what you're developing. > >> > >> Yeah. I actually use less and less models in the regular way nowadays. > >> I use plenty of panels (the app I work on hardly uses separate pages) > >> that nest other panels in them (typically detail views or dialogs) > >> that reuse models of the parent. But indeed YMMV. > >> > >> Personally, I think the whole generics business exposes that the > >> one-one relation between components and models is flawed. Without > >> generics this isn't much of a problem, just the odd unused member and > >> constructor, but as generics aren't as 'optional' it is all very in > >> your face suddenly. > >> > >> I think on the longer term (post 1.4) we should re-think how models > >> work in Wicket. See if we can find an elegant way to make this more > >> flexible (I'm not in favor of the id based thing someone posted > >> earlier btw) without breaking the whole world. > >> > > > > We discussed this on ##wicket yesterday. I asked why we have models > > on all components and someone pointed out that the main reason was > > about the detach stuff I believe. But, couldn't that be solved by > > having some components that implement something like IModelDriven (or > > IModelBacked or whatever) and the detach logic could apply to only > > those components? Also, someone has pointed out that when they create > > their own components, they sometimes (such as in Palette) have > > multiple "models" that they deal with. Allowing components to name > > their models what they want would be nice, too. > > > >> FWIW, I'm still on the fence when it comes to whether we should go for > >> a full or partial (models only) implementation of generics, though I'm > >> leaning towards partial. > >> > >> Eelco > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> 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] > >
