i have the same feeling, and i also don't think we can drop one and still
have the other like we want.
So i guess we are stuck with what we have because i don't want completely
gone.
johan
On 3/7/07, Stefan Lindner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe I am too accustomed to generics now but I can't imagine how a
non-generic Component class definition with a generic Model parameter can
look like.
Now Compinent is defined as
class Component<T> ... {
public Component(final MarkupContainer<?> parent, final String
id, final IModel<T> model) {
...
}
public final T getModelObject() {
...
}
How should a non generic class definition look like? And pepole that don't
like or need generics can still use the raw types.
My preference for a strong gneric API comes from the experience I made
when I moved from Wicket 1.2 to 2.0. The simple syntactic modifications
for generic Components showed up several programming errors that we
otherwise had to debug during runtime of the application. It also showed up
some design problems of our applicatioin. So a strong generic API may took a
little bit more time in developing an application but it saves much more
time in debugging.
Stefan Lindner
