Look in the section "Laguage Proposals" > "Shorter Instance Creations"
in:
http://blogs.sun.com/dannycoward/resource/Java7Overview_Prague_JUG.pdfOther useful links:
http://blogs.sun.com/ahe/resource/java-se-7-EclipseCon-2007.pdfhttp://puredanger.com/techfiles/java7.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Compagner [mailto:
jcompagner@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 7:47 AM
To:
users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket
really?
i still cant find information what will really be 1.7..
On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Hoover, William <
whoover@...>
wrote:
> In java 1.7 it will allow: TextField<Stirng> tf = new TextField("id");
> So, at least one of your wishes will come true ;o)
>
> I like the default idea.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johan Compagner [mailto:
jcompagner@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:15 AM
> To:
users@...
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> If only... if only
> we had this construct:
>
> class Component<T default Void>
> {
> }
>
> then all our problems with verbosity would be gone..
>
> TextField tf = new TextField("id") // just default Void
>
> Also only declare it once:
>
> TextField<Stirng> tf = new TextField("id");
>
>
> And both ways type guessing, so
>
> TextField<String> tf = new TextField("id", new Model()); //textfield
> and model are both just <String> or TextField tf = new TextField("id",
> new Model<String>()); // text field gets the type of its given model..
>
> I guess we should make a feature request for sun and then Vote on it
> with all of us!
> (and make noise on the internet...)
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 8:58 AM, Marcus Mattila
> <
marcus.mattila@...>
> wrote:
>
> > > generics for formcomponents do not make sense, most of the time
> > > they
>
> > > can figure out the type by inspecting their model. further,
> > > generics
>
> > > did not get rid of the need to specify the type as a constructor
> > > argument: new TextField<Integer>("num", Integer.class)
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > +1 for NOT generifying everything, because most components are "set
> > +it
> > and forget it" => generifying everything is unnecessary clutter.
> >
> > I will continue to use Wicket whatever is decided, though :)
> >
> > -Marcus
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > - To unsubscribe, e-mail:
users-unsubscribe@...
> > For additional commands, e-mail:
users-help@...
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail:
users-help@...
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail:
users-help@...