I don't know if i should speak up amongst elite group of people discussing, but hey i'll try ... :)
From what i understand most people have issues with readability of generics; but as i have indicated time and again as java improves and generic types become reified; and java becomes inferred static typed; generic notation will be less DRY violating and more clear. But its the conceptual approach that i am not sure I am following (which is why said may be I shouldn't be posting this :)). A component has to have an associated model type with it. Generifying models is mandatory... but from what i see; not generifying components would be a big mistake. I cannot see any model less component. A component interacts with underlying application data using model wrapper ... that was the beauty of wicket that i had come to love the most and if now we are saying that it is valid in some cases and in some it isn't is contradictory. If anything; for consistency sake we should go with component level generification. But i guess i am in the minority in that issue. Generics is something that java developers have to get used to and it takes some time ... but just because it takes some time; we should choose a middle ground solution isn't exactly right; may be more practical (oh well ;) ). On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > i agree and we only need 2 things to be fixed improved by sun and then all > the current problems are completely gone.... > But i guess we never get them > Because they find JavaFX way more importand.. I am glad the focused on that > because it gave us Java6U10 but that whole JavaFX i dont have much hope for > that. > > johan > > > On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 6:25 PM, Edward <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > 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] > > > > > -- Regards Vyas, Anirudh || ॐ ||
