« Return to Thread: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket

by jwcarman :: Rate this Message:

Reply to Author | View in Thread

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:11 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <sebster@...> wrote:
> A raw type is a parameterized type in which the type parameters are not
> filled in, i.e., new HashMap() (instead of new HashMap<String, Integer>()).
>
> Just try to return one of your old (non-generified) HomePage.class classes
> (i.e., HomePage extends WebPage instead of HomePage extends WebPage<Void>)
> in your WebApplication's getHomePage() method, and you will see that it does
> not compile.

There is a section on the wiki addressing this now.  I would propose
that whenever referring to "class objects that represent Page
subclasses" we use Class<? extends Page> rather than Class<? extends
Page<?>>.  This allows us to specify that it has to be a page class,
but it doesn't make the page class have to be generified.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...

 « Return to Thread: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on generics with Wicket