It's good to see someone being happy with it and using it for
something real. I'm afraid my initial message was FUD anyway, as
looking into it a little bit closer, it doesn't seem like we have a
lot of choice. Seems to be either all or nothing. And as we can always
tell the compiler to ignore this stuff, I guess 'all' is the best
here.
Eelco
On 3/7/07, Stefan Lindner <
lindner@...> wrote:
> Maybe I am too accustomed to generics now but I can't imagine how a non-generic Component class definition with a generic Model parameter can look like.
> Now Compinent is defined as
>
> class Component<T> ... {
> public Component(final MarkupContainer<?> parent, final String id, final IModel<T> model) {
> ...
> }
>
> public final T getModelObject() {
> ...
> }
>
> How should a non generic class definition look like? And pepole that don't like or need generics can still use the raw types.
> My preference for a strong gneric API comes from the experience I made when I moved from Wicket 1.2 to 2.0. The simple syntactic modifications for generic Components showed up several programming errors that we otherwise had to debug during runtime of the application. It also showed up some design problems of our applicatioin. So a strong generic API may took a little bit more time in developing an application but it saves much more time in debugging.
>
> Stefan Lindner
>
>
