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

[Brill Pappin]

I'd really like to know how it's "ruining my wicket experience"?
Can you please elaborate?

I agree that the M1 release of 1.4 was less than optimum, but not having
generics is annoying to people who have gotten used to using them.

- Brill Pappin

-----Original Message-----
From: mozvip [mailto:guillaume.serre@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:13 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket



1) Generifying* Wicket
   [X] Should be avoided, definitly. All this generics stuff is ruining my
wicket experience.

2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
   [X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.


--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-t
ake-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17602298.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@...

[Brill Pappin]

Clearly :)

However I think the wicket developers have to be careful here as doing wrong
will make a big mess :)

- Brill

-----Original Message-----
From: Hoover, William [mailto:whoover@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:27 AM
To: users@...
Subject: RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

Goes to show you that people have a tendency to reject things that they do
not understand rather than put in the effort :o)


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

[Matej Knopp]

I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular objections against current state. I think before
we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not something
we can really do about) with current state. I use wicket with generics
daily and I don't see any particular show stopper so far.

Also If i had to decide between new WebMarkupContainer<Void> and new
WebMarkupContainer where the later wouldn't be generified I'd
certainly go for the <Void> alternative.

-Matej

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<eelco.hillenius@...> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some
> discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
>
> I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular
> Wicket users as we can. Please help us get an impression of what our
> users think about the issue by completing this simple survey. Note
> that it is not a vote; we only want to get an idea of what you think.
>
> 1) Generifying* Wicket
>   [ ] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
> and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
> static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
>   [ ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
> IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
> for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
> for instance) than static type checking.
>   [ ] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill
> in your opinion here).
>   [ ] .... (anything other than these choices?)
>
> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>   [ ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
> using 1.4 and up.
>   [ ] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>   [ ] I definitively won't be using 1.4. if Wicket doesn't go for my
> preference.
>
> Thanks in advance for everyone participating, and pls feel free to
> explain yourself further beyond just answering these questions!
>
> Eelco
>
> p.s. I suggest that the core devs and most active participants and
> previous discussions wait a few days before giving their opinions so
> that we don't flood the thread right from the start.
>
> * Parameterizing would probably be the better word to use, but
> generifying seems to be the word that many people use.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[John Krasnay]

On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 01:44:59PM -0700, Eelco Hillenius wrote:

>
> 1) Generifying* Wicket
>    [x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
> IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
> for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
> for instance) than static type checking.
>
> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>    [x] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
> using 1.4 and up.

IMHO storing a model in a Component is more a convenience than a
fundamental part of component-ness. This may be part of the reason that
genericizing Component is so contentious.

I have many components with no model and many others, such as a
TextField that uses a parent's CompoundPropertyModel, the component has
a model but I really don't care about the type, since I never call
getModelObject(). In all these cases (which are easily the majority in
my experience), genericized Components would force me to deal with the
syntactic overhead of generics with absolutely zero value.

I'm all for genericizing certain components for which the model is
central (e.g. ListView and Item) but I think genericizing Component is
overkill, since it's relatively rare that I care about the type of a
component's model.

jk

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

[Brill Pappin]

I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward* generics.
Frankly I can't even see why its an issue at all, the language has evolved
and uses them... Why would Wicket not also use them its inline with the
current state of the language?

There is no reason that people who can't get their heads around Generics
can't use the older releases that don't include it, but IMO any java
developer who doesn't get generics yet better make some time to learn,
because like it or not, they *will* be dealing with them.

- Brill Pappin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matej Knopp [mailto:matej.knopp@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:46 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular objections against current state. I think before we
even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss what's wrong
(except the verbosity of course, but that's not something we can really do
about) with current state. I use wicket with generics daily and I don't see
any particular show stopper so far.

Also If i had to decide between new WebMarkupContainer<Void> and new
WebMarkupContainer where the later wouldn't be generified I'd certainly go
for the <Void> alternative.

-Matej

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius <eelco.hillenius@...>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some
> discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
>
> I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular
> Wicket users as we can. Please help us get an impression of what our
> users think about the issue by completing this simple survey. Note
> that it is not a vote; we only want to get an idea of what you think.
>
> 1) Generifying* Wicket
>   [ ] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
> and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
> static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
>   [ ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
> IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
> for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
> for instance) than static type checking.
>   [ ] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill
> in your opinion here).
>   [ ] .... (anything other than these choices?)
>
> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>   [ ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
> using 1.4 and up.
>   [ ] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>   [ ] I definitively won't be using 1.4. if Wicket doesn't go for my
> preference.
>
> Thanks in advance for everyone participating, and pls feel free to
> explain yourself further beyond just answering these questions!
>
> Eelco
>
> p.s. I suggest that the core devs and most active participants and
> previous discussions wait a few days before giving their opinions so
> that we don't flood the thread right from the start.
>
> * Parameterizing would probably be the better word to use, but
> generifying seems to be the word that many people use.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Martin Funk-3]

Hi Elco, hi Users,

first of all thanks a lot for trying generics in wicket in the first case.
I haven't really cared about em so far, too much. So thanks a lot for
the learning experience I'm going through right now.
>    [x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
> IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
> for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
> for instance) than static type checking.
>  
As I see it generifying component far of being elegant yet.
Components are tightly knitted together with their class representation.
There are quite some methods that don't return the component,
but its class. Maybe most prominently 'getHomePage()' in Application.

This used to have the signature:
public abstract Class getHomePage();

And a popular implementation would be:
public Class getHomePage() {
    return HomePage.class
}

So maybe in favor of that popular implementation its current signature is:

Application: public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> getHomePage();

which is not a generic method but a method with a generified return
parameter.
But at least this works with the existing user code basis very well.
But it also implies a circle I can't break up in my mind yet.
This signature forces you to implement HomePage as a raw type, a class
without type parameters, esp. not generic.
Though on the other hand HomePage is a descendant of Component which is
generic, of course.
Which is a strong sign for HomePage to be generic too.

I think both ends don't go together well.

How is this going to be solved? Or, explained?

My tries on the signature of getHomePage() didn't really lead nowhere.
The best Try on this is:
public abstract <C extends Page> Class<C> getHomePage();

Leaving Page and possibly Component raw.

Maybe it is enough to just generify some of Components methods?
> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>    [x] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>  
mf

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

[whoover]

I see your point... a referendum will only be as good as the current
state of the product that is being evaluated, and the expertise of those
doing the evaluation. It seems as though in this case that some of those
doing the evaluation have limited knowledge of what benefits generics
has to offer (and obviously the state of the product is incomplete- so a
released version is not what's being evaluated).

-----Original Message-----
From: Johan Compagner [mailto:jcompagner@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:32 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

yes thats why i am against Referendums (politically) :)

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Hoover, William <whoover@...>
wrote:

> Goes to show you that people have a tendency to reject things that
> they do not understand rather than put in the effort :o)
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: richardwilko [mailto:richardjohnwilkinson@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:21 AM
> To: users@...
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
>
> ok maybe i misread this :
>
> 'Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify IModel
> but not components. I care more about what generifying can do for API
> clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models for
> instance) than static type checking.'
>
> but those 2 sentences seem to contradict each other, the first says
> only generify IModel which I assumed ti mean that when you put a
> String into a model you would get a String out of it, the second seems

> to says generifiying components to make them only accept some model
types.

>
> So just to clarify my position
>
> generic models which would do away with this type of casting:
> protected void onSubmit(AjaxRequestTarget target, Form form) {
>        EmailFormModel emailFormModel = (EmailFormModel)
> form.getModelObject();
>        ....
> is what I would like to see.
>
> generic components im not bothered about.
>
> if using generics wont do away with the casting then I dont see any
> point to using them at all.
>
>
>
> Johan Compagner wrote:
> >
> > why are you contradicting yourself?
> >
> > "To be honest I don't see the advantage of generic components, all I

> > want is to not have to do casting when I'm using models,
> > .getModelObject() should return the type that I put in, in a list
> > view, if I give it a list of strings I dont want to cast the
> > listItem model object to a string."
> >
> > if you have just IModel then you will have to cast.. getModelObject
> > will always return just Object then.
> >
> >
> > ok maybe i misread
> >
> > about:
> >
> > "new TextArea(...).add(some behavior).setRequired(true) "
> >
> > this can be done but then we have to override some methods of
> > component and then return another type The problem is that this
> > could result in us lifting a final where we dont want to..
> > But this is outside the scope of generics
> >
> > johan
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM, richardwilko
> > <richardjohnwilkinson@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>   [ x ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only
> >> generify
>
> >> IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can
> >> do for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain
> >> models for instance) than static type checking.
> >>
> >>    [ x ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/
> >> start
>
> >> using 1.4 and up.
> >>
> >> To be honest I don't see the advantage of generic components, all I

> >> want is to not have to do casting when I'm using models,
> >> .getModelObject() should return the type that I put in, in a list
> >> view, if I give it a list of strings I dont want to cast the
> >> listItem
>
> >> model object to a string.  It would also be nice if the .add() and
> >> others methods on components could return the type of component it
> >> is
>
> >> rather than just a Component object.  eg you cant do 'new
> >> TextArea(...).add(some behavior).setRequired(true) because the add
> >> behaviour method returns a Component not a TextArea and setRequired

> >> is not available on Components.
> >>
> >> Thanks
> >> --
> >> 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-tp17589984p17601296.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@...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-
> yo
> ur-take-on-generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17602507.html<http://www.na
> bble.com/users%2C-please-give-us-your-opinion%3A-what-is-your-take-on-
> generics-with-Wicket-tp17589984p17602507.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@...
>
>

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

[jwcarman]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
> having any particular objections against current state. I think before
> we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
> what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not something
> we can really do about) with current state. I use wicket with generics
> daily and I don't see any particular show stopper so far.
>

+1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.

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

[whoover]

+1

-----Original Message-----
From: Brill Pappin [mailto:brill@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:49 AM
To: users@...
Subject: RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

I don't know, I think the discussion is going *toward* generics.
Frankly I can't even see why its an issue at all, the language has
evolved and uses them... Why would Wicket not also use them its inline
with the current state of the language?

There is no reason that people who can't get their heads around Generics
can't use the older releases that don't include it, but IMO any java
developer who doesn't get generics yet better make some time to learn,
because like it or not, they *will* be dealing with them.

- Brill Pappin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Matej Knopp [mailto:matej.knopp@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:46 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
having any particular objections against current state. I think before
we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not something
we can really do
about) with current state. I use wicket with generics daily and I don't
see any particular show stopper so far.

Also If i had to decide between new WebMarkupContainer<Void> and new
WebMarkupContainer where the later wouldn't be generified I'd certainly
go for the <Void> alternative.

-Matej

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<eelco.hillenius@...>
wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> We have had several threads in this and the dev list, and some
> discussions in the public on how to incorporate generics in Wicket.
>
> I'd like to use this thread to gather the opinions of as many regular
> Wicket users as we can. Please help us get an impression of what our
> users think about the issue by completing this simple survey. Note
> that it is not a vote; we only want to get an idea of what you think.
>
> 1) Generifying* Wicket
>   [ ] Can best be done like currently in the 1.4 branch, where models
> and components are both generified. I care most about the improved
> static type checking generified models and components give Wicket.
>   [ ] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
> IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
> for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
> for instance) than static type checking.
>   [ ] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill
> in your opinion here).
>   [ ] .... (anything other than these choices?)
>
> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>   [ ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
> using 1.4 and up.
>   [ ] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>   [ ] I definitively won't be using 1.4. if Wicket doesn't go for my
> preference.
>
> Thanks in advance for everyone participating, and pls feel free to
> explain yourself further beyond just answering these questions!
>
> Eelco
>
> p.s. I suggest that the core devs and most active participants and
> previous discussions wait a few days before giving their opinions so
> that we don't flood the thread right from the start.
>
> * Parameterizing would probably be the better word to use, but
> generifying seems to be the word that many people use.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...



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

[Martin Funk-3]

Hi Elco, hi Users,

first of all thanks a lot for trying generics in wicket in the first case.
I haven't really cared about em so far, too much. So thanks a lot for
the learning experience I'm going through right now.
>    [x] Can best be done in a limited fashion, where we only generify
> IModel but not components. I care more about what generifying can do
> for API clarity (declaring a component to only accept certain models
> for instance) than static type checking.
>  
What currently bus me is that Components are tightly knitted together
with their class representation.
There are quite some methods that don't return the component,
but its class. Maybe most prominently 'getHomePage()' in Application.

This used to have the signature:
public abstract Class getHomePage();

And a popular implementation would be:
public Class getHomePage() {
    return HomePage.class
}

So maybe in favor of that popular implementation its current signature is:

Application: public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> getHomePage();

which is not a generic method but a method with a generified return
parameter.
But at least this works with the existing user code basis very well.
But it also implies a circle I can't break up in my mind yet.
This signature forces you to implement HomePage as a raw type, a class
without type parameters, esp. not generic.
Though on the other hand HomePage is a descendant of Component which is
generic, of course.
Which is a strong sign for HomePage to be generic too.

I think both ends don't go together well.

How is this going to be solved? Or, explained?

My tries on the signature of getHomePage() didn't really lead nowhere.
The best Try on this is:
public abstract <C extends Page> Class<C> getHomePage();

Leaving Page and possibly Component raw.

Maybe it is enough to just generify some of Components methods?
> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>    [x] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>  
mf

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

[whoover]

+1
I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.

-----Original Message-----
From: jcarman@... [mailto:jcarman@...]
On Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
wrote:
> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone

> having any particular objections against current state. I think before

> we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
> what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not something

> we can really do about) with current state. I use wicket with generics

> daily and I don't see any particular show stopper so far.
>

+1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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@...

[jwcarman]

Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* "gotchas" we
encounter and try to come up with a solution for them.  My guess is
that we can do so.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Hoover, William <whoover@...> wrote:

> +1
> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
> that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcarman@... [mailto:jcarman@...]
> On Behalf Of James Carman
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: users@...
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
>
>> having any particular objections against current state. I think before
>
>> we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
>> what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not something
>
>> we can really do about) with current state. I use wicket with generics
>
>> daily and I don't see any particular show stopper so far.
>>
>
> +1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
> folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Scott Swank]

Agreed.  I don't see a problem with having to type Link<Void> or
Page<Void> instead of Link/Page.  That's simply the way that generics
are implemented in Java.  Are there places in the API where an end
user would have to type something like Class<? extends Page<? extends
IModel<T>>>?  That way madness lies, however I haven't seen anything
like that in 1.4M1 (I'll let you know about M2 later today).

So unless I'm missing something pretty beafy, which I don't see here:

   http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/generics.html

I just don't see the problem with the current direction.

Cheers,
Scott

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Hoover, William <whoover@...> wrote:
> +1
> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
> that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.

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

[whoover]

Sounds like a good idea... Are you going to create it?

-----Original Message-----
From: jcarman@... [mailto:jcarman@...]
On Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:06 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* "gotchas" we
encounter and try to come up with a solution for them.  My guess is that
we can do so.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Hoover, William <whoover@...>
wrote:

> +1
> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
> that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcarman@...
> [mailto:jcarman@...]
> On Behalf Of James Carman
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM
> To: users@...
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
> wrote:
>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see
>> anyone
>
>> having any particular objections against current state. I think
>> before
>
>> we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
>> what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not
>> something
>
>> we can really do about) with current state. I use wicket with
>> generics
>
>> daily and I don't see any particular show stopper so far.
>>
>
> +1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
> folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...



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

[jwcarman]

I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now.

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hoover, William <whoover@...> wrote:

> Sounds like a good idea... Are you going to create it?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jcarman@... [mailto:jcarman@...]
> On Behalf Of James Carman
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:06 AM
> To: users@...
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> Why don't we use the Wiki page to list our *specific* "gotchas" we
> encounter and try to come up with a solution for them.  My guess is that
> we can do so.
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Hoover, William <whoover@...>
> wrote:
>> +1
>> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
>> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
>> that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: jcarman@...
>> [mailto:jcarman@...]
>> On Behalf Of James Carman
>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 10:56 AM
>> To: users@...
>> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
>> generics with Wicket
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...>
>> wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see
>>> anyone
>>
>>> having any particular objections against current state. I think
>>> before
>>
>>> we even think of (partially) reverting generics we have to discuss
>>> what's wrong (except the verbosity of course, but that's not
>>> something
>>
>>> we can really do about) with current state. I use wicket with
>>> generics
>>
>>> daily and I don't see any particular show stopper so far.
>>>
>>
>> +1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
>> folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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@...
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Jan Kriesten]

Hi,

> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
> having any particular objections against current state.

@matej_k:

ugh - you should count again... if I counted right, most of the responses yet
prefer 'Component' /not/ being touched by generics.

 > +1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
 > folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.

@jwcarman:

There is an issue with generics on components which is leading into a big mess -
and as far as I can see, many objections are especially on that topic! It might
not be Wicket's fault, though, it might be a language problem (i.e. Java's to
blame).

But IMHO putting generics on Component is a bad design, since it per se touches
all of Wicket's Components without urgent need. Boilerplate over and over. If I
look at my components and libraries (and yes, i have tried out 1.4!) - I have at
most 30% of my components containing a Model!

Best regards, --- Jan.



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

[jwcarman]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:22 AM, Jan Kriesten <jan.kriesten@...> wrote:
> @jwcarman:
>
> There is an issue with generics on components which is leading into a big
> mess - and as far as I can see, many objections are especially on that
> topic! It might not be Wicket's fault, though, it might be a language
> problem (i.e. Java's to blame).
>

How about if we clearly document specific code snippets on the wiki
that are causing troubles with people?  Then, we evaluate how/if we
can address the issue.  If there are a lot of issues left on the wiki
page that the resolution is "Java generics suck and we can't code
around this", then perhaps we decide at that point that generics are
in fact not worth the troubles.

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

[Matej Knopp]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Jan Kriesten <jan.kriesten@...> wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see anyone
>> having any particular objections against current state.
>
> @matej_k:
>
> ugh - you should count again... if I counted right, most of the responses
> yet prefer 'Component' /not/ being touched by generics.

Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on
day-to-day basis.

-Matej

>
>> +1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
>> folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.
>
> @jwcarman:
>
> There is an issue with generics on components which is leading into a big
> mess - and as far as I can see, many objections are especially on that
> topic! It might not be Wicket's fault, though, it might be a language
> problem (i.e. Java's to blame).
>
> But IMHO putting generics on Component is a bad design, since it per se
> touches all of Wicket's Components without urgent need. Boilerplate over and
> over. If I look at my components and libraries (and yes, i have tried out
> 1.4!) - I have at most 30% of my components containing a Model!
>
> Best regards, --- Jan.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[whoover]

Ahhh... there's a good starting point for the gotchas...

I agree. It is not a big issue to use Void when needed.

I doubt anyone would be using something like Class<? extends Page<?
extends IModel<T>>> unless they themselves are attempting to extend a
generic component that they want to extend its generic capabilities.
Anyone that doesn't want to use the complete generic signature does not
have to ("MyPage extends Page<SomeModel>" and "Class<? extends MyPage>"
or "Class<MyPage>"). That's the nice thing... It's up to the user.

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Swank [mailto:scott.swank@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:11 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

Agreed.  I don't see a problem with having to type Link<Void> or
Page<Void> instead of Link/Page.  That's simply the way that generics
are implemented in Java.  Are there places in the API where an end user
would have to type something like Class<? extends Page<? extends
IModel<T>>>?  That way madness lies, however I haven't seen anything
like that in 1.4M1 (I'll let you know about M2 later today).

So unless I'm missing something pretty beafy, which I don't see here:

   http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/generics.html

I just don't see the problem with the current direction.

Cheers,
Scott

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Hoover, William <whoover@...>
wrote:
> +1
> I would like to see what the major issues are as to why people are
> rejecting model/component generics. None that I have seen so far are
> that convincing- especially the complaints of verbosity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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@...

[whoover]

Good question... I would add to that and say:

how many of those users actually use generified wicket on day-to-day
basis?

how many of those users actually implement generics on day-to-day basis
(not just using them- like List<MyClass>)?

-----Original Message-----
From: Matej Knopp [mailto:matej.knopp@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:28 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Jan Kriesten <jan.kriesten@...>
wrote:

>
> Hi,
>
>> I'm not sure I like where this discussion is going. I don't see
>> anyone having any particular objections against current state.
>
> @matej_k:
>
> ugh - you should count again... if I counted right, most of the
> responses yet prefer 'Component' /not/ being touched by generics.

Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on
day-to-day basis.

-Matej

>
>> +1, I agree.  I think this discussion might be counter-productive if
>> folks who aren't using the generified versions are voting.
>
> @jwcarman:
>
> There is an issue with generics on components which is leading into a
> big mess - and as far as I can see, many objections are especially on
> that topic! It might not be Wicket's fault, though, it might be a
> language problem (i.e. Java's to blame).
>
> But IMHO putting generics on Component is a bad design, since it per
> se touches all of Wicket's Components without urgent need. Boilerplate

> over and over. If I look at my components and libraries (and yes, i
> have tried out
> 1.4!) - I have at most 30% of my components containing a Model!
>
> Best regards, --- Jan.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...