Hold on there... Why would you suppress warnings?
I think I must miss the point of it because I don't *ever* want an API to
decide what warnings I should and shouldn't see.
-Brill Pappin
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:
jeremy@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 6:05 PM
To:
users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
I agree with the Class<? extends Page> with @SuppressWarnings in the
framework code. It makes it easier, and there's no drawback either way.
Jeremy
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Johan Compagner <
jcompagner@...>
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:33 PM, Martin Funk
> <
mafulafunk@...>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sebastiann,
> >
> > just for clarifying my understanding of the vocabulary:
> >
> > A_HomePage extends WebPage
> > and
> > B_HomePage extends WebPage<Void>
> > are both non-generified java classes.
>
>
> No the last one is generified..
> The first one is a raw type.
>
>
> >
> >
> >
> > Esp. if the signature of 'public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>>
> > getHomePage();' stays that way the HomePage can't be generified.
> >
> >
> No as far as i can see, the home page MUST be generified thats the
> whole problem with that constructo What would happen if we did:
>
> public abstract Class<? extends Page>
>
> and have a supresswarning in our code.
>
> johanm
>
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
users-help@...
