On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 2:24 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> The IModel interface, if you're talking about the one from Wicket, is > a view-specific interface (it comes with a view layer library). James, Have you actually read what I wrote ? Maarten > > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Maarten Bosteels > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:09 PM, James Carman < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > > >> You shouldn't muddy up your "domain" with view-specific logic (the > >> IModel interface). > > > > > > In my example I just used IModel<T> instead of Property<T> because > everybody > > knows IModel. > > > > Have a look at https://bean-properties.dev.java.net/ > > It's certainly *not* view-specific logic. It's a very simple idea, and > way > > more elegant than ugly setters and getters. > > > > But I will have a look at the proxy approach as well. > > > > regards > > Maarten > > > > > >> > >> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 5:42 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] > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
