| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Jan Kriesten | May 12, 2008 2:08 am | |
| Martijn Dashorst | May 12, 2008 4:07 am | |
| Jan Kriesten | May 12, 2008 5:28 am | |
| Martijn Dashorst | May 12, 2008 5:34 am | |
| Jan Kriesten | May 12, 2008 5:39 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | May 12, 2008 8:25 am | |
| Johan Compagner | May 12, 2008 8:34 am | |
| Jan Kriesten | May 12, 2008 9:14 am | |
| Jan Kriesten | May 12, 2008 9:17 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | May 12, 2008 10:12 am | |
| Jan Kriesten | May 12, 2008 10:25 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | May 12, 2008 10:31 am | |
| Gerolf Seitz | May 12, 2008 3:00 pm | |
| Johan Compagner | May 12, 2008 3:19 pm | |
| jWeekend | May 12, 2008 4:59 pm | |
| Jonathan Locke | May 12, 2008 6:24 pm | |
| Jonathan Locke | May 12, 2008 6:36 pm | |
| Eelco Hillenius | May 12, 2008 6:51 pm | |
| Jan Kriesten | May 12, 2008 9:44 pm | |
| Jonathan Locke | May 12, 2008 10:52 pm |
| Subject: | Re: encapsulation, extension and transparent resolvers | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Johan Compagner (jcom...@gmail.com) | |
| Date: | May 12, 2008 8:34:26 am | |
| List: | org.apache.wicket.users | |
A whole story about bladiabla, but what is now the actual problem??
Why do you need transparant resolvers and why dont they work for you ?
On 5/12/08, Jan Kriesten <jan....@renitence.de> wrote:
hi martijn,
I don't do that. I pose that it is very easy to say that feature X must be implemented when you don't have to do anything yourself in supporting feature X.
i don't want a new feature. the point is wicket's implementation of transparent resolvers has it's troubles making it hard to use it to implement extension to (default) components (due to encapsulation).
all i ask is to get a workaround until there might be a new implementation of how transparent resolvers work.
It is a matter of fact: should we support this or not.
as i said, it's not a question of to support it, it's a matter of 'we can't fix it atm, but there's a way we could fix a problem for now'...
regards, --- jan.





