Generics - Re: First impressions of 1.4-m3

[Edward <ed...@wicketbits.aezix.com>]

I'm probably too late coming into the discussion but from reviewing past 
threads it appears the only reason for 1.4-m3 over m2 and removing 
generics from Component is because some things like Page and Label don't 
make sense with generics?

If that is really the only reason (and there may be others that I just 
didn't understand) why can't we make Component generic and then do:

public class Label extends WebComponent<Object> {


...
	
}

and now Label is not generic anymore.

Edward



Edward wrote:
> 
> I've been a little busy so just took my first look at 1.4-m3 and spend a 
> few minutes upgrading a small app.  So far the only thing I wish were 
> different is for getModel and getModelObject to not have been changed to 
> getDefaultModel and getDefaultModelObject.  That breaks old code and 
> some things like libraries I may not have control over to upgrade.  My 
> preference would have been to keep them the same and have the new 
> generic ones named something else like getComponentModel and 
> getComponentModelObject.  This way old code still works but I have a 
> migration path to start using generics in my app.
> 
> Just my $.02
> 
> Edward
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> 
> 
> 


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