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

[Eelco Hillenius]

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@...

[atul singh-5]

1)
 [ 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.
*Reason::* I think generifying data-structure/models is what is sustainable.
Components can become too complicated when gentrified..and who know how far
wicket wants to go!!

2)
[X] I definitively won't be using 1.4. if Wicket doesn't go for my
preference.



On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:14 AM, 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@...
>
>

[dabar]

scan this user forum, you will realize that there is no high demand for
generics in wicket from users. I am yet to see one user or thread here of
wicket users screeming out for generics addition. I think users has been
doing just fine without it at least speaking for myself.

Anything more than IModel, I wont upgrade to 1.4 as well

+1 for IModels only

as for as I am concerned, annotations are better 1.5 additions than
generics. generics is just awful


On 6/1/08, atul singh <singhatulkr@...> wrote:

>
> 1)
>   [ 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.
>
> *Reason::* I think generifying data-structure/models is what is
> sustainable.
> Components can become too complicated when gentrified..and who know how far
> wicket wants to go!!
>
> 2)
> [X] I definitively won't be using 1.4. if Wicket doesn't go for my
> preference.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:14 AM, 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@...
> >
> >
>

[egolan74]

 [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.
*Reason* - Well, I haven't started working "hard" on 4.1
Were we work we still with the 1.3.3 mostly because they're afraid of the
migration.
When I changed to 1.4 in my personal try-out project, I got really confused
and annoyed with the need to add generics to my page, panel etc.
I think that the Model should be generified. It seems logical to me to force
the user to use specific types in the model.

[X] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
using 1.4 and up.
*Reason* - I usually prefer to work with the latest version.

[dabar]

  [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.

On 6/1/08, 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@...
>
>

[Eelco Hillenius]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Ayodeji Aladejebi <aladejebi@...> wrote:
> scan this user forum, you will realize that there is no high demand for
> generics in wicket from users. I am yet to see one user or thread here of
> wicket users screeming out for generics addition. I think users has been
> doing just fine without it at least speaking for myself.

Well, there are at least a couple of long-time users that have been
waiting around for more than a year for us to implement (or
re-implement since it was in 2.0) this. But let's see what opinions
this threads show us.

> Anything more than IModel, I wont upgrade to 1.4 as well
>
> +1 for IModels only

Thanks for giving your opinion.

Eelco

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

[Peter Ertl]

> 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.

Cheers
Peter


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

[Nick Heudecker]

> 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] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>
>

I'm content with the way things work now, but adding generics to models
would be helpful.  It's unclear if adding generics to components would be
worth the complexity.

[Azarias Tomás]

1)   [ X] 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.

2)   [ X] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.



AT

[Ricky-22]

[X ] 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.

I think generifying Components give more clarity (Don't blame Wicket for
Messed up Generic Notation, lots of things can and i suppose will be
improved as we move on) to thinking; IMHO generifying components like pages
and panels makes for cleaner code (in that you see clearly that "this" panel
/ page or whatever is tied to this model etc.)

I don't know ... I am kinda in between 1 & 2 (adding generics to components
or just in limited fashion). But I'll think most people would want to go for
number 2. (adding generics in limited fashion). I would still upgrade to 1.4

Regards
Vyas, Anirudh

[jwcarman]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:44 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<eelco.hillenius@...> wrote:
> 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.

+1 - Although I agree this needs to be done in a way that makes sense.
 If the code gets too crazy, folks will be turned off.


> 2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
>   [ ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
> using 1.4 and up.

+1

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

[MYoung]

  [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] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:44 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@...
>
>

[Ricky-22]

wow this has a pattern for sure doesn't it ? ;)

Rick

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:25 PM, Matthew Young <ginyeah@...> 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] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>
> On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:44 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@...
> >
> >
>

[Vit Rozkovec]

> 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] I might rethink upgrading if my choice doesn't win.
>  
*Reason* for new people who want to start with wicket the way generics are now may not be very clear and harder to grasp at the beginning. Most of the people here is long time in the business, so it may seem natural to you, but try to imagine those just entering.


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

[Stephan Koch-3]

1) Generifying* Wicket
    [X] 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.

2) How strongly do you feel about your choice above?
    [ ] Whatever choice ultimately made, I'll happily convert/ start
using 1.4 and up.
    [X] 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.

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

[Johan Compagner]

Didnt you encounter the big thread (at least 100 messages) where we
discussed/voted going to 1.4? (and cool down dev on 1.3)

On 6/1/08, Ayodeji Aladejebi <aladejebi@...> wrote:

> scan this user forum, you will realize that there is no high demand for
> generics in wicket from users. I am yet to see one user or thread here of
> wicket users screeming out for generics addition. I think users has been
> doing just fine without it at least speaking for myself.
>
> Anything more than IModel, I wont upgrade to 1.4 as well
>
> +1 for IModels only
>
> as for as I am concerned, annotations are better 1.5 additions than
> generics. generics is just awful
>
>
> On 6/1/08, atul singh <singhatulkr@...> wrote:
>>
>> 1)
>>   [ 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.
>>
>> *Reason::* I think generifying data-structure/models is what is
>> sustainable.
>> Components can become too complicated when gentrified..and who know how
>> far
>> wicket wants to go!!
>>
>> 2)
>> [X] I definitively won't be using 1.4. if Wicket doesn't go for my
>> preference.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 2:14 AM, 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: