afiar the proxy based model is null safe. Martijn
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 11:47 AM, francisco treacy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > hi maarten > >> About the null checking, I will see if I can avoid having nested null values >> in my proof-of-concept project. > > thing is the object chain is going to be resolved before it gets > passed in - there's nothing you can do about it inside your class :( > an eventual null pointer exception would be thrown before your > constructor is called. > > francisco > > > > > >> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Maarten Bosteels >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Wayne Pope <[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >>> > wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Hi, >>> > > >>> > > Francisco and I here where discussing whether we could figure a way of >>> > > having some form of static/compile time checking on our >>> > > (Compound)PropertyModels, as I'm a bit concerned long term about some >>> > nasty >>> > > runtime bugs that might slip through the testing coverage. Francisco >>> > found >>> > > this thread - I'm wondering what the status is? I had a look at: >>> > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1327 >>> > > >>> > > and there doesn't look like any activity since Feb. Anyone been using >>> > this >>> > > or come up with a different solution? >>> > > >>> > > Ideally I think it would be just great if we had an eclipse plugin that >>> > > could just check for this (a bit like checkstyle or something) but a >>> > runtime >>> > > solution as proposed above seems really smart as well. However I'd >>> rather >>> > > keep is 100% java (ie not cglib) if possible. >>> > >>> > Hello, >>> > >>> > If you want something 100% java you could copde your domain models like >>> > this: >>> > >>> > public class Customer implements Serializable { >>> > public final IModel<String> firstName = new Model<String>(); >>> > public final IModel<String> lastName = new Model<String>(); >>> > } >>> > >>> > and use it like this: >>> > >>> > form.add(new TextField<String>("firstName", customer.firstName)); >>> > form.add(new TextField<String>("lastName", customer.lastName)); >>> > >>> > => no need to generate ugly getters/setters for all your properties >>> > => pure java >>> > => refactoring-safe >>> > => navigation + code-completion from IDE >>> > => you can still override setObject() and/or setObject() when needed >>> > >>> > In this example I have used wicket's IModel and Model but you could >>> > also use Property<String> from https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/ >>> > which has a lot of other benefits (a pity that the project is stalled a >>> > bit). >>> > >>> > Note that I haven't used this extensively but I sure do want to test >>> > it out in the near future.. >>> > >>> > One problem I see with this approach is when you need null-checking >>> > for nested properties: >>> > eg: new TextField<String>("city", customer.address.getObject().city ); >>> > >>> > Let me know what you think about it. >>> > >>> > Maarten >>> > >>> > >>> > > Thanks for any update if anyone knows anything! >>> > > Wayne >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > Johan Compagner wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >> no i really dont like that >>> > >> then everywhere there code they need to do that, that is not an >>> option. >>> > >> and they have to program themselfs agains the proxy api. I dont want >>> > that >>> > >> developers also have the learn/do that >>> > >> This is something commons-proxy needs to do >>> > >> >>> > >> On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 3:29 PM, James Carman < >>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> > >> wrote: >>> > >> >>> > >>> Couldn't you also do: >>> > >>> >>> > >>> ProxyFactory pf = ...; >>> > >>> new SharedPropertyModel<Customer>(pf, customer); >>> > >>> >>> > >>> So, the client tells you what proxy factory implementation to use. >>> > >>> >>> > >>> On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > I see the JIRA, I'll go ahead and start the discussion on the dev >>> > list. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On 3/8/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > On 3/8/08, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > > for wicket this is a feature it really should have >>> > >>> > > > now it defeats the purpose i have to make a decission in >>> > wicket >>> > >>> which >>> > >>> > > > factory i use >>> > >>> > > > Then i can just as well directly compile against cglib. >>> > >>> > > > I cant make the api that way that the developer has to give >>> > that >>> > >>> factory to >>> > >>> > > > use. That would be completely horrible, >>> > >>> > > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > You could always implement your own brand of discovery for your >>> > >>> > > project (perhaps by using the service discovery feature built >>> > into >>> > >>> the >>> > >>> > > jdk). >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > > I like the idea of splitting it (and doing it the slf4j way >>> > rather >>> > >>> > > than the JCL way). I have actually suggested that we start an >>> > >>> > > exploratory branch of JCL to make it work more like slf4j >>> (we've >>> > >>> been >>> > >>> > > talking about this since 2005). Anyway, if you file a JIRA >>> > issue, >>> > >>> > > I'll make sure we have a discussion with the other devs. For >>> > your >>> > >>> > > immediate purposes, commons-discovery is available also. >>> > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > View this message in context: >>> > >>> http://www.nabble.com/CompoundModel-based-on-proxies-tp15317807p20222077.html >>> > > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> > > 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] > > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.3.4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
