Because everybody now needed to (or did) override the component getConveter()
and it was never a stack by the way, it was always a map (but in the end the result is the same ofcourse)
But that doesn't matter and that is still possible because we have still the factory to create youre own ISupplyConveter
So you still can create create a Convereter like before and call add(Class,Converter)
But maybe you want a converter that has some kind of session state (by default now none of the converters have that anymore)
johan
On 5/17/06,
Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
supports wasnt to replace the type parameters, it was to ease with registration
instead of doing something like
Map<Class,IConverter> registry;
registry.put(String.class, new StringConverter());
registry.get (String.class);
you have
Stack<IConverter> registry;
stack.push(new StringConverter());
and you search for the converter by iterating over the stack
this way if a user wants to override any of the default converters they just push it onto the stack and its supports(Class) is called before any of our default ones since they are lower on the stack.
so instead of overriding+checking+delegating like you have to do now if youw ant to provide your own factory you simply do return super.getDefaultFactory().add(new MyStringConverter());
-IgorOn 5/17/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:I'm still a bit worried about the naming etc.
In my opinion, the thing we want to do is to do input-output
conversion for models. Models could do this themselves, but pulling
the conversion out makes things way more flexible. So... as this is
what we are doing, I would propose to choose a name that reflects
this, for example:
IModelConverter {
String toOutput(Object modelValue);
Object toInput(String requestValue);
boolean supports(Class type);
}
I'm not sure about the type paramter vs supports.
Eelco
On 5/17/06, Igor Vaynberg < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> we might also consider adding IConverter.supports(Class) to make
> registration easier.
>
> -Igor
>
>
>
> On 5/14/06, Johan Compagner < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > first currently we have IConverter and ITypeConverter , i want to combine
> those 2 to be one interface
> > And then a converter must be easy to make but also to understand.
> >
> > So i can do this:
> >
> > IConverter.convertToObject (String, Class)
> > IConverter.convertToString(Object)
> >
> > Then writing a DateConverter is pretty simple, you have one
> SimpleDateFormat (or more per locale)
> > and then in toObject you do parse and in toString you do format
> >
> > The thing is we loose a bit of the more "generic" nature we have now
> > because in the current setup we could do:
> >
> > conveter.convert(new Double(10), Integer.class) to convert from a double
> to a integer.
> > Do we need this? We could make:
> >
> > IConverter.convertObject(Object, Class) instead of
> IConverter.convertToObject(String, Class)
> > besides to convertToString.
> >
> > But that would complicate converters again.
> >
> > That Class param can be ignored by a Converter impl (or it could check if
> it was the type for which this converter is build.)
> > But having that class param there then it is possible to make a compound
> converter and only have one interface
> > so that you can much easier make youre converter for a specific textfield.
> >
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security?
Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier
Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmdlnk&kid0709&bid&3057&dat1642
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
