Well I'll speak up and say I don't like generics in Wicket. I like them
in other places... just not here. It is a lot of extra ugly code just
to fix the rare occurrence that I have to cast the model object.
Not to mention in my opinion it breaks the data abstraction the model
provides. Might as well get rid of the model all together.
When I first started using Wicket I admit I was shocked there were no
generics and I was accessing the model object all the time and casting.
As I got better at using Wicket though I found better ways of doing
things and I believe I haven't done a cast even once in the past 6
months - and I have developed some fairly complicated apps in that time.
I think 1.3 is designed very well and I like it a lot.
Edward
Jan Kriesten wrote:
Hi Igor,
you are against generics completely. but they are going to happen. the
way they are now is not perfect, in 1.5 we will try to move them to a
better place, but like it or not they are here to stay.
huh - hell, no, I'm not against generics at all. Where do you get that from? I'm
against generics on Components which are not FormComponents (or ListViews)!
I'm using Wicket together with Scala and other than with Java, I can't just drop
the generics attributes (and live with the warnings). And the <Void> is really a
hell of a generic...
Generics on Models are what is needed and if your vision to decouple models from
the component and use introspection/reflection to support them comes true I'd be
quite happy (and could use Scala's mixin-feature to have my model functionality
on the components).
Best regards, --- Jan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
