atom feed20 messages in org.apache.wicket.usersRe: encapsulation, extension and tran...
FromSent OnAttachments
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 2:08 am 
Martijn DashorstMay 12, 2008 4:07 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 5:28 am 
Martijn DashorstMay 12, 2008 5:34 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 5:39 am 
Igor VaynbergMay 12, 2008 8:25 am 
Johan CompagnerMay 12, 2008 8:34 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 9:14 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 9:17 am 
Igor VaynbergMay 12, 2008 10:12 am 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 10:25 am 
Igor VaynbergMay 12, 2008 10:31 am 
Gerolf SeitzMay 12, 2008 3:00 pm 
Johan CompagnerMay 12, 2008 3:19 pm 
jWeekendMay 12, 2008 4:59 pm 
Jonathan LockeMay 12, 2008 6:24 pm 
Jonathan LockeMay 12, 2008 6:36 pm 
Eelco HilleniusMay 12, 2008 6:51 pm 
Jan KriestenMay 12, 2008 9:44 pm 
Jonathan LockeMay 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.