The IModel interface, if you're talking about the one from Wicket, is a view-specific interface (it comes with a view layer library).
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]
