Sorry that I brought it up, but I'm way behind on reading the wicket-develop mailing list (busy couple weeks at work, you know...). Anyway, thank you for the comments.
And I would not worry about converters too much... I mean, it is definitely should be addressed in the next release or so, but I don't think it is a barrier to wider wicket adoption.
Alex
On 5/5/06, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
oops, meant to send this to wicket-develop! i can tell it's going to
be one of those days...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 5, 2006 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: [Wicket-develop] Type Enhancers
To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.netif only type enhancers existed we could find out the answer to such
questions! it sounds like you're asking if converters should be type
enhancers. i'm really not sure, but it sounds like an interesting idea to
play with. this would be a case where the enhancer enhanced an
interface like "StringConverter enhances IModel<T>". the question is,
perhaps, whether converters are really orthogonal to models. i suspect
that the answer is yes, but it's hard to say since you can't try it and see.
luckily, nicer solutions to conversion are possible in normal java. i think
we've spent some time discussing how to improve conversion in wicket
and we'll surely improve this in the next version as it's not quite right
at this time (although i could be behind on this if someone has already
addressed it). it's easily my fault that conversion doesn't work as well
as it might. for some stupid reason, i only considered converting types
(class a to class b) and not conversion between representations in a
given type. that's simply a design error and a substantial one. oops.
my bad.
best,
jonOn 5/5/06, Johan Compagner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Don't know if you are on the develop list so forward it to you.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Alexei Sokolov < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: May 5, 2006 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Wicket-develop] Type Enhancers
To: wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
Jonathan,
What do you think about using type enhancers as models in wicket?
Take practical example: string-to-string conversion for form fields in wicket. You need to create a new class to be able to convert from string to string, in forminput example it is UsPhoneNumber. And you need to modify your model to include this new field. To do so you have two options - extend your model or use type enhancer so you original class is intact. Is it appropriate use of such type enhancers? Or there is a better way to solve my problem?
AlexOn 3/29/06, Jonathan Locke < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:For anyone who was following my idea about "mixed types" which Igor posted to the user list recently, I've changed the name of it to "type enhancers" and written a micro-whitepaper on it which you can read here. If anyone has any comments, I'd be interested in your feedback. Thanks!
Best,
Jonathan
