Comments on: Fixing Wicket Property Models Using Salve http://wicketinaction.com/2009/01/fixing-wicket-property-models-using-salve/ A comprehensive guide for Java developers building Wicket-based web applications Wed, 07 Jul 2010 23:51:26 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: ivaynberg http://wicketinaction.com/2009/01/fixing-wicket-property-models-using-salve/comment-page-1/#comment-431 ivaynberg Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:32:38 +0000 http://wicketinaction.com/?p=338#comment-431 @Anotine: The names are a bit cryptic, but the reason is that I want to keep them as short as possible, I got tired of typing out PropertyModel all the time :) There is no need to do this in development mode; when your application is running, in any mode, you will already get a runtime exception. The entire point of this is to shift the error from runtime into a lower phase such as compile or test because runtime is the hardest to test. @Anotine:

The names are a bit cryptic, but the reason is that I want to keep them as short as possible, I got tired of typing out PropertyModel all the time :)

There is no need to do this in development mode; when your application is running, in any mode, you will already get a runtime exception. The entire point of this is to shift the error from runtime into a lower phase such as compile or test because runtime is the hardest to test.

]]> By: Antoine http://wicketinaction.com/2009/01/fixing-wicket-property-models-using-salve/comment-page-1/#comment-428 Antoine Sat, 21 Feb 2009 05:11:06 +0000 http://wicketinaction.com/?p=338#comment-428 Igor, I like your idea. I would definitely prefer to use such a PeModel over a PropertyModel (although I find the names Pe and PeModel too cryptic). Could it be taken a step further such that this new model would be integrated into the Wicket core, and that testing is happening automatically when running in development mode? --Antoine Igor,

I like your idea. I would definitely prefer to use such a PeModel over a PropertyModel (although I find the names Pe and PeModel too cryptic). Could it be taken a step further such that this new model would be integrated into the Wicket core, and that testing is happening automatically when running in development mode?

–Antoine

]]> By: ivaynberg http://wicketinaction.com/2009/01/fixing-wicket-property-models-using-salve/comment-page-1/#comment-400 ivaynberg Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:49:36 +0000 http://wicketinaction.com/?p=338#comment-400 @Daniele: doing so will push the check back into runtime which is highly undesirable. All the analyzer sees is "new Pe(...)" and it checks just that part of the bytecode. @Daniele: doing so will push the check back into runtime which is highly undesirable. All the analyzer sees is “new Pe(…)” and it checks just that part of the bytecode.

]]> By: Daniele http://wicketinaction.com/2009/01/fixing-wicket-property-models-using-salve/comment-page-1/#comment-399 Daniele Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:37:10 +0000 http://wicketinaction.com/?p=338#comment-399 Nice idea, I will give this a try, just one observation: is not possible for the bytecode analyzer to get the Class from modelObject.getClass() instead of specifying the class? Nice idea, I will give this a try, just one observation: is not possible for the bytecode analyzer to get the Class from modelObject.getClass() instead of specifying the class?

]]>