i dont think it exposes anything, or that anything is flawed. the component provides a slot for a default model - it is there totally out of convinience. i think what is flawed here is that we tied the two types via generics.
for example, sometimes i want to have a webmarkupcontainer with a model and sometimes without. -igor On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Brill Pappin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I agree with that and I think that is *the* key point. > If implementing regular language features exposes a flaw, fix the flaw. > > I'm one of those that would rather have to refactor my code to > "upgrade" to a new major version than try and work around some "flaw" > just to maintain compatibility. > > - Brill Pappin > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Eelco Hillenius > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [...] >> 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. > [...] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
