« Return to Thread: generics in Wicket

Re: generics in Wicket

by Johan Compagner :: Rate this Message:

no i am not pro for degenerifying it.
I like the getModelObject()

and that we have to do this:
TextField<Integer> integerTextField = new
TextField<Integer>(this,"integerProperty", Integer.class);

is just suns fault of that stupid erasure :(

But i am curious about where people talk to
is it just the model or are people go through componet.getModelObject() ?

But then how would you generify only the models?

for example if we completely remove it from the components

then we have this?

TextField tf = new Textfield(new Model<String>("test"));

but how get we that model generified back in?

tf.getModel() should return Model<String> then because if we also loose that
then we can completely scrap it and i am really -1 about that.

johan

On 3/7/07, Eelco Hillenius <eelco.hillenius@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
> I think we went overboard applying generics in Wicket.
>
> Things like:
> TextField<Integer> integerTextField = new TextField<Integer>(this,
> "integerProperty", Integer.class);
>
> are just horrible imo. Sure, you can do:
>
> Integer i = integerTextField.getModelObject();
>
> instead of:
>
> Integer i = (Integer)integerTextField.getModelObject();
>
> but that's about the whole great benefit of generic components for the
> price of about twice the verbosity.
>
> Also, calling getModelObject is the kind of convenience method that
> grew upon us but that I personally never liked. It saves an ugly model
> check, fine, but in general I think users should try to directly work
> with models and their underlying objects instead.
>
> I can see the method come in handy in list views (on ListItem), though
> then again, you know the model object would never be null there so
> getModel().getObject() would work as well.
>
> Anyway, what I'd like us to consider is to de-generify components and
> only keep it for models. For certain components (like ListView) we/
> users can decide to introduce it, but the general case would be to not
> to.
>
> Thoughts? Screams?
>
> Eelco
>

« Return to Thread: generics in Wicket