yes. thats what i meant by wrapping. when/if we evaluate this we can
obviously put more thought into what it will effect and how to make it
all work. right now it was just a two minute idea i had, and it may
yet forever stay that way.
-igor
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:16 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This might also screw up stuff like CompoundPropertyModel, no? We
> discussed this a bit on ##wicket.
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> i didnt mean the memory slot, i ment the actual default model each
>> component can have. if i can write something like this:
>>
>> add(new webmarkupcontainer("foo") {
>> private imodel<person> model;
>> protected void isvisible() { return model.getobject()!=null; });
>>
>> then i am perfectly happy. notice how there is no explicit ondetach()
>> to detach the model. also notice how not having a default model slot
>> really removes the need for typing the component itself, i can
>> implement my own typed getmodel() easily. the only thing that breaks
>> here is wrapping since we no longer have a setmodel...something to
>> think about
>>
>> -igor
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 12:53 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> like matej already told you
>>> There is no default "slot" or field..
>>> A component with no model doesnt have a a slot what so ever.
>>>
>>> johan
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:34 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> like i said, i dont mind removing the default slot if we add nice
>>>> automatic detachment for fields.
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Eelco Hillenius
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >> 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.
>>>> >
>>>> > It depends on how you phrase things. It is a fact that currently
>>>> > models and components are tightly bound because of 'getModelObject'.
>>>> >
>>>> > The main issue is that with 1.3 you can simply omit the model, whereas
>>>> > with generified components the choice to not use a model is explicit
>>>> > (whether you use void, or an annotation to ignore warnings). Very
>>>> > annoying if you ask me, and it triggered me to think that this is
>>>> > another hint that the one-one relationship between components and
>>>> > models like we have now is somewhat flawed. I'm not saying it totally
>>>> > stinks and that we should get rid of it tomorrow, just that it is
>>>> > something we might rethink. You know I'm a fan of rethinking stuff ;-)
>>>> >
>>>> > 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]
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
