Hmmph, a weird fact to consider though is that when you are
"Non-generifying" the Component class, it doesn't make sense as to why one
would have XXComponent be generically typed to something, like a 'T' which
is also generic type for IModel, I mean the whole idea is to de-couple the
component class with the IModel in the first place; by keeping component
different from its children would "infer" from users standpoint at least
that children are somehow different.
I don't know just a thought.
Rick
On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> which is exactly what we are trying to avoid - having generics in
> Component.
>
> -Matej
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Ricky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know if i was clear enough, sorry about that.
> >
> > I meant if you have something like :
> >
> > public Component<MODEL extends IMODEL<ID>, ID extends Serializable>{
> >
> > // getter here
> > public MODEL getModel() { }
> >
> > // setter here
> > public void setModel(final MODEL model){ }
> >
> > }
> >
> > then, you don't have to do anything, basically all your components like
> for
> > example listItem would be :
> >
> > public ListItem<MODEL extends IModel<ID>,ID extends Serializable> extends
> > Component<MODEL, ID>{
> >
> >
> > ////// DONT need to override anything here!!!
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> > Instead of capture i used an ID, because it makes more sense to have a
> model
> > generically typed to a serializable id.
> > Just some thoughts.
> >
> > Rick
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
