I can sympathise with that. However I don't think it would be a
maintenance nightmare if the constructors are set to private; but that
would mean a dramatic API change for such convenience and I'm guessing
you're not willing to do this.

Best,
James.

On 14 April 2010 17:01, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you are going to have one factory method for each constructor, its
> going to be a pita to maintain. not something we will want in core.
>
> -igor
>
> On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 8:51 AM, James Perry
> <james.austin.pe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I am looking to migrate from Wicket 1.3 and Wicket 1.4 and I really
>> like the type-safe goodies but I do not like its verbosity. I was
>> thinking of writing a patch that provides factories to improve the
>> brevity by type inference of the generic invariant.
>>
>> This is an example of my idea:
>>
>> Model<MySuperLongNameForASimpleFooObject> model = Model.newModel();
>>
>> public static <T> Model<T> newModel() {
>>    return new Model<T>();
>> }
>>
>> Feedback welcomed. :-)
>>
>> --
>> Best,
>> James.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

Reply via email to