yeah. i agree. if we did anything it would be better to change IModel as i
said,
but then just deprecate getModelObject() and add a preferred version as
getModelValue() as johan suggested. this would only break code that
directly
uses IModel (a more limited number of users).
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
> I voted -1, but here is my opinion about the change proper.
>
>> public interface IModel<V> extends IDetachable
>> {
>> V getValue();
>> void setValue(V value);
>> }
>
> This would be for the better imo, though I don't hate the original
> getObject *that* much. It's just what you are used to and I think
> documentation on how models should be used is a lot more important.
>
>
>> we would also change getModelObject() to getValue() as well as any other
>> related methods like getModelObjectAsString() to getValueAsString() (or
>> valueAsString() if preferred). there might be naming conflicts somewhere
>> or
>> other problems, but i don't know of any offhand.
>
> Tbh, I actually don't think Component#getValue is for the better. I
> think Component#getModelObject is way clearer than Component#getValue.
> In the end I think both value and object are ambiguous, and this
> should be fixed by documentation and examples.
>
> Btw, If there is *anything* I never liked about the whole model
> business, it is the fact that Component has methods to get the model
> value in the first place (getModelObject etc).
>
> The indirection that IModel provides is something to get used to. It
> is one of the places where we traded clarity and simplicity for
> flexibility. I think it'll be hard to grasp for newbies no matter the
> naming, so the better our documentation and examples are, the quicker
> they will be able to wrap their head around it.
>
> Eelco
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
> Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share
> your
> opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
> http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
> _______________________________________________
> Wicket-user mailing list
> Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/revising-the-%22Working-with-Wicket-models%22-page-tf3016921.html#a8526349
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT
Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your
opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash
http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
