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

[Jan Kriesten]

Hi Matej,

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

well, I did, and it really doesn't looked nice (and it doesn't work as it should
in the end, but that's another story).

The main point is (repeatedly) ignored by the people who are 'pro' generics:

Why do you have to put generics on Components, when need is only in a fraction
of cases?

Discussing the possibility of <Void> is somewhat an obscure workaround. It's
just boilerplate in more than 70% (of my cases), and this boilerplate gets
repeated over and over again with each assignment.


Best regards, --- Jan.

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

[Sebastiaan van Erk]

Hi,

> But IMHO putting generics on Component is a bad design, since it per se
> touches all of Wicket's Components without urgent need.

I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled. What is a *good
design* alternative, where only IModel is generified? getModelObject()
returns Object? getModel returns IModel<?>?

Regards,
Sebastiaan



> Best regards, --- Jan.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>

[Brill Pappin]

Can you elaborate?
What (anti)pattern(s) make you think that generics in the components are bad
design?

Besides the effort involved for the wicket developers, as a user I was
leaning the opposite way... But maybe I missed something (not unusual).

- Brill Pappin


-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:jan.kriesten@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:23 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket


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@...


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

[Jan Kriesten]

Hi Sebastiaan,

> I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
> Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled.

that's part of the problem, agreed.

> What is a *good
> design* alternative, where only IModel is generified? getModelObject()
> returns Object? getModel returns IModel<?>?

IMHO the practical solution would be to leave generics from components and have
getModelObject return Object, yes. On certain components (ListView e.g.), those
methods may be overridden by more concrete implementations.

Regards, --- Jan.

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

[Martijn Dashorst]

Question is, how many of those users are core committers. Not
everybody is a generics wizz you know, nor has the need to become one.
Most users want to just build web apps in a clean, self-documenting
API that doesn't put too much burden upon them - conceptually and
number of characters to type, read and understand.

Martijn

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:

> 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@...
>
>

--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3

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

[Brill Pappin]

Why can't this be done the way the java API does it, and allow people to use
it or not as they want?
Wicket is pretty clean in terms of the API, and there are interfaces for
most things... So what's the problem with adding the generics to the
interfaces?

AFAIK this would allow them to be ignored if the user didn't have a place
for them.

- Brill Pappin

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:jan.kriesten@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:46 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket


Hi Sebastiaan,

> I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
> Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled.

that's part of the problem, agreed.

> What is a *good
> design* alternative, where only IModel is generified? getModelObject()
> returns Object? getModel returns IModel<?>?

IMHO the practical solution would be to leave generics from components and
have getModelObject return Object, yes. On certain components (ListView
e.g.), those methods may be overridden by more concrete implementations.

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]

If you use more than one type of model for a given component I would
hardly say that it is only a fraction of the time. Do you use only one
type of model on all your components? :o)

The use of Void is not an obscure workaround. Why do you think they have
it? I think it's intent is very clear if you understand what void
represents. The key point is that Java generics are not runtime generics
;o)

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:jan.kriesten@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:37 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket


Hi Matej,

> Question is, how many of those users actually use generified wicket on

> day-to-day basis.

well, I did, and it really doesn't looked nice (and it doesn't work as
it should in the end, but that's another story).

The main point is (repeatedly) ignored by the people who are 'pro'
generics:

Why do you have to put generics on Components, when need is only in a
fraction of cases?

Discussing the possibility of <Void> is somewhat an obscure workaround.
It's just boilerplate in more than 70% (of my cases), and this
boilerplate gets repeated over and over again with each assignment.


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@...

[jwcarman]

Yes, the trick here is to not muddy up Wicket for the newcomers.
Wicket needs to be easy to learn and understand in order for it to be
adopted by the masses!

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<martijn.dashorst@...> wrote:

> Question is, how many of those users are core committers. Not
> everybody is a generics wizz you know, nor has the need to become one.
> Most users want to just build web apps in a clean, self-documenting
> API that doesn't put too much burden upon them - conceptually and
> number of characters to type, read and understand.
>
> Martijn
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
>> 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@...
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
> Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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@...

[Ryan Sonnek-2]

>
> 1) Generifying* Wicket
>   [x] Should be avoided, I prefer the way 1.3 works. Because... (fill
> in your opinion here).
>
After seeing the impact that generics had on the codebase, I'm begining to
feel that it's not worth the effort.  Trying to *JUST* generify models seems
like a half baked solution which will constantly trigger users asking, "why
isn't foo using generics?"  My biggest fear is that the API will bloat and
become less understandable by adopting generics.

>
> 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.

I trust the wicket core devs 100% so whatever they implement, I'll take a
look at.  Just remember to Keep It Simple!!!  =)

[Brill Pappin]

Lets not forget the stats we're all aware of (or should be) that 80% of
resources in software development are in maintenance... If I'm looking at my
ROI, then my developers can type a few extra words in order to reduce that
resource load.

And lets face it; it *all* comes down to maintenance (and the cost of),
despite effort on the initial development.

One thing that means for me, is generics... Just like TDD, it reduces the
issue count (among other things).

- Brill Pappin

-----Original Message-----
From: Martijn Dashorst [mailto:martijn.dashorst@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:47 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

Question is, how many of those users are core committers. Not everybody is a
generics wizz you know, nor has the need to become one.
Most users want to just build web apps in a clean, self-documenting API that
doesn't put too much burden upon them - conceptually and number of
characters to type, read and understand.

Martijn

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:28 PM, Matej Knopp <matej.knopp@...> wrote:
> 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@...
>
>

--
Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released Get it now:
http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3

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

[Sebastiaan van Erk]

James Carman wrote:
> I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now.

Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really
about generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component
(which really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS).

One of the gotcha's I think is the getHomePage() signature...

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

This breaks raw types (you can't return raw home page).

I don't see any way out of this one without making the getHomePage()
signature incorrect (i.e., you can't make it a generic method, which was
used to solve the problem where a method argument had the type Class<?
extends Page<?>>).

Regards,
Sebastiaan

> 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 William,

> If you use more than one type of model for a given component I would
> hardly say that it is only a fraction of the time. Do you use only one
> type of model on all your components? :o)

read again - I said 70% of my components don't have a Model...

> The use of Void is not an obscure workaround. Why do you think they have
> it? I think it's intent is very clear if you understand what void
> represents. The key point is that Java generics are not runtime generics
> ;o)

See above, the point is having <Void> in there for especially nothing to gain -
Just make reading harder and each assignment even longer...

Regards, --- Jan.



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

[jwcarman]

On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk <sebster@...> wrote:

> James Carman wrote:
>>
>> I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now.
>
> Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really about
> generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which
> really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS).
>
> One of the gotcha's I think is the getHomePage() signature...
>
>        public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> getHomePage();
>
> This breaks raw types (you can't return raw home page).
>
> I don't see any way out of this one without making the getHomePage()
> signature incorrect (i.e., you can't make it a generic method, which was
> used to solve the problem where a method argument had the type Class<?
> extends Page<?>>).
>

So, add that to the wiki so that we can discuss it.

> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
>
>
>
>> 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@...
>>
>

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

[Sebastiaan van Erk]

Brill Pappin wrote:
> Why can't this be done the way the java API does it, and allow people to use
> it or not as they want?
> Wicket is pretty clean in terms of the API, and there are interfaces for
> most things... So what's the problem with adding the generics to the
> interfaces?
>
> AFAIK this would allow them to be ignored if the user didn't have a place
> for them.

Well for one, getHomePage() does not compile if you returned home page
is not generified, so it's not really that simple (opt in vs opt out).

Regards,
Sebastiaan

> - Brill Pappin
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:jan.kriesten@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:46 AM
> To: users@...
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
>
> Hi Sebastiaan,
>
>> I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
>> Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled.
>
> that's part of the problem, agreed.
>
>> What is a *good
>> design* alternative, where only IModel is generified? getModelObject()
>> returns Object? getModel returns IModel<?>?
>
> IMHO the practical solution would be to leave generics from components and
> have getModelObject return Object, yes. On certain components (ListView
> e.g.), those methods may be overridden by more concrete implementations.
>
> 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@...
>

[Brill Pappin]

I'm likely missing something here, but why would you want to return
something other than a *Page object? Wouldn't that cause some issues with
the application?

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "raw type".

- Brill Pappin
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sebastiaan van Erk [mailto:sebster@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:53 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

James Carman wrote:
> I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now.

Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really about
generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which
really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS).

One of the gotcha's I think is the getHomePage() signature...

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

This breaks raw types (you can't return raw home page).

I don't see any way out of this one without making the getHomePage()
signature incorrect (i.e., you can't make it a generic method, which was
used to solve the problem where a method argument had the type Class<?
extends Page<?>>).

Regards,
Sebastiaan




> 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@...
>

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

[Sebastiaan van Erk]

Jan Kriesten wrote:
>
> Hi Sebastiaan,
>
>> I *really* would like to see a clarification of this statement. In
>> Wicket the component and model are very tightly coupled.
>
> that's part of the problem, agreed.

Kind of "late in the game" to do anything about that it seems though.
And I don't know if I agree that it's a problem (I haven't seen anything
better yet).

>> What is a *good design* alternative, where only IModel is generified?
>> getModelObject() returns Object? getModel returns IModel<?>?
>
> IMHO the practical solution would be to leave generics from components
> and have getModelObject return Object, yes. On certain components
> (ListView e.g.), those methods may be overridden by more concrete
> implementations.

What about getModel()? If componennt is not generified I'm really
wondering if the there is any benefit to generics at all... (I do really
think it will spawn lots of questions on the list as well).

Regards,
Sebastiaan

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

[whoover]

I read it, but I think most people will be using models more frequently
than 30% of the time. Personally, I use them 99% of the time.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:jan.kriesten@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:54 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket


Hi William,

> If you use more than one type of model for a given component I would
> hardly say that it is only a fraction of the time. Do you use only one

> type of model on all your components? :o)

read again - I said 70% of my components don't have a Model...

> The use of Void is not an obscure workaround. Why do you think they
> have it? I think it's intent is very clear if you understand what void

> represents. The key point is that Java generics are not runtime
> generics
> ;o)

See above, the point is having <Void> in there for especially nothing to
gain - Just make reading harder and each assignment even longer...

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@...

[Brill Pappin]

+1

Even if its one of the built in composite models, you still kind of need
them for most things you do.

- Brill

-----Original Message-----
From: Hoover, William [mailto:whoover@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:59 AM
To: users@...
Subject: RE: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket

I read it, but I think most people will be using models more frequently than
30% of the time. Personally, I use them 99% of the time.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Kriesten [mailto:jan.kriesten@...]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:54 AM
To: users@...
Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
generics with Wicket


Hi William,

> If you use more than one type of model for a given component I would
> hardly say that it is only a fraction of the time. Do you use only one

> type of model on all your components? :o)

read again - I said 70% of my components don't have a Model...

> The use of Void is not an obscure workaround. Why do you think they
> have it? I think it's intent is very clear if you understand what void

> represents. The key point is that Java generics are not runtime
> generics
> ;o)

See above, the point is having <Void> in there for especially nothing to
gain - Just make reading harder and each assignment even longer...

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@...

[Jan Kriesten]

Hi Sebastian,

> What about getModel()? If componennt is not generified I'm really
> wondering if the there is any benefit to generics at all... (I do really
> think it will spawn lots of questions on the list as well).

what's the problem with getModel? If you specialize on a certain Component, you
can implement T getModel() ?

Regards, --- Jan.


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

[Sebastiaan van Erk]

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.

Regards,
Sebastiaan

Brill Pappin wrote:

> I'm likely missing something here, but why would you want to return
> something other than a *Page object? Wouldn't that cause some issues with
> the application?
>
> Maybe I don't understand what you mean by "raw type".
>
> - Brill Pappin
>  
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sebastiaan van Erk [mailto:sebster@...]
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 11:53 AM
> To: users@...
> Subject: Re: users, please give us your opinion: what is your take on
> generics with Wicket
>
> James Carman wrote:
>> I'm adding a "Gotchas" section now.
>
> Your pallete gotcha seems more like a JIRA to me. :-) It's not really about
> generics in general, but about a specific choice in 1 component (which
> really seems incorrect to me, i.e., PECS).
>
> One of the gotcha's I think is the getHomePage() signature...
>
> public abstract Class<? extends Page<?>> getHomePage();
>
> This breaks raw types (you can't return raw home page).
>
> I don't see any way out of this one without making the getHomePage()
> signature incorrect (i.e., you can't make it a generic method, which was
> used to solve the problem where a method argument had the type Class<?
> extends Page<?>>).
>
> Regards,
> Sebastiaan
>
>
>
>
>> 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@...
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@...
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@...
>