on removing the finals
The final members are the worst thing I've had to deal with in Wicket
so far.
Although I understand that there may be a reason for them, they are
more a hinderance than anything else and seem to be trying to "protect
users from themselves".
- Brill Pappin
On 12-Jun-08, at 1:03 AM, cowwoc wrote:
>
>
> Have you considered moving from subclassing to composition in Wicket
> using
> Callable<T>?
>
> Currently it is quite common for developers to subclass a component
> in order
> to override isVisible() and other properties. I am proposing that
> instead
> the component classes become final and properties may only be set
> using
> setter methods. The setter methods would take Callable<T> instead of
> T, so
> for example setVisible(boolean) would become
> setVisible(Callable<Boolean>)
>
> The benefit of this approach is that you could introduce static
> factory
> methods to the Wicket components which would make them much easier
> to use in
> their Generic form. You could then introduce various helper classes to
> create Callable<T> for constant values, such as
> Callable.valueOf(true) would
> return a Callable<Boolean> that always returns true.
> --
> View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17792488.html> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...
