Stefan Lindner wrote: > > 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. >
I agree with this. We had the same experience, moving from 1.x to 2.0. Applying generics to complex component/model interactions can be hard (f.i. models working with collections, wrapmodels that define a different object than the nested model,...), but it clearly identifies where the design is not correct. We are in favor of maintaining generics. Jan. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/generics-in-Wicket-tf3360271.html#a9360723 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
