216 messages in org.apache.wicket.usersRe: Free wicket from component hierar...| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Martin Makundi | Nov 4, 2010 1:13 pm | |
| 7zark7 | Nov 4, 2010 1:54 pm | |
| Jonathan Locke | Nov 4, 2010 3:06 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 4, 2010 3:08 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 4, 2010 3:13 pm | |
| Jeremy Thomerson | Nov 4, 2010 9:56 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 4, 2010 10:59 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 4, 2010 11:46 pm | |
| Michał Letyński | Nov 5, 2010 12:52 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:07 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Nov 5, 2010 1:12 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:15 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Nov 5, 2010 1:20 am | |
| Marc Nuri San Félix | Nov 5, 2010 1:22 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:28 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:31 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Nov 5, 2010 1:34 am | |
| Martin Grigorov | Nov 5, 2010 1:36 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:37 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:38 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:40 am | |
| Leszek Gawron | Nov 5, 2010 5:36 am | |
| James Carman | Nov 5, 2010 5:39 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 5:47 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 5, 2010 9:55 am | |
| Jeremy Thomerson | Nov 5, 2010 10:00 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 10:23 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 5, 2010 11:19 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 11:39 am | |
| Eelco Hillenius | Nov 5, 2010 11:49 am | |
| Eelco Hillenius | Nov 5, 2010 11:56 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 11:58 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 12:00 pm | |
| Eelco Hillenius | Nov 5, 2010 12:15 pm | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 5, 2010 12:55 pm | |
| Brian Topping | Nov 5, 2010 12:56 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:06 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 1:14 pm | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 5, 2010 1:21 pm | |
| Brian Topping | Nov 5, 2010 1:32 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 10:05 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 10:07 pm | |
| Jeremy Thomerson | Nov 5, 2010 10:48 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 11:31 pm | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 5, 2010 11:53 pm | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 5, 2010 11:57 pm | |
| James Carman | Nov 6, 2010 5:12 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 6, 2010 5:20 am | |
| Jeremy Thomerson | Nov 6, 2010 6:22 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 6, 2010 6:43 am | |
| samket | Nov 6, 2010 6:54 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 6, 2010 4:44 pm | |
| Sebastian | Nov 8, 2010 8:17 am | |
| Vitaly Tsaplin | Nov 8, 2010 8:23 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 8, 2010 8:27 am | |
| Martin Makundi | Nov 8, 2010 8:29 am | |
| Igor Vaynberg | Nov 8, 2010 8:35 am | |
| Vitaly Tsaplin | Nov 8, 2010 8:35 am | |
| 158 later messages | ||
| Subject: | Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Martin Makundi (mart...@koodaripalvelut.com) | |
| Date: | Nov 4, 2010 11:46:19 pm | |
| List: | org.apache.wicket.users | |
Hi!
We could also make so that "wicket:id" is old-school and "wicket:id:protected" is new-school.
No need to refactor anything.
Just pros without any cons.
** Martin
2010/11/5 Martin Makundi <mart...@koodaripalvelut.com>:
Hi!
Can you see how this would fail?
<html> <form wicket:id="form1"> <input wicket:id="input" .../> </form> <form wicket:id="form2"> <input wicket:id="input" .../> </form> </html>
That's old-school-wicket ;)
This would not be allowed anymore. An application would have to be refactored (using an automated script) into:
<html> <form wicket:id="form1"> <input wicket:id="input-1" .../> </form> <form wicket:id="form2"> <input wicket:id="input-X" .../> </form> </html>
We would simply change wicket syntax: panels and pages require unique wicket id for all components.
What about repeaters?
What about repeaters? Repeaters are generated on-the-fly anyways so they can be definitely computed on-the-fly.
What about if form1 was in BasePage.html and form2 was in HomePage.html (which extends BasePage.html) - how do we know which input component to get? The one you called add on in BasePage.java, or the one in HomePage.java? Oh, we can't differentiate which class you called add from within. Oh, and you could have meant for the one added in HomePage.java to replace the one added in BasePage.java.
How do you propose we do all that?
You win some, you lose some. Nobody ever complained that parent and super classes cannot have protected fields with same names. Wicket:ids simply are considered protected-scoped. Maybe it could also be possible to define wicket:id:private which requires hierarcy and wicket:id which is "friendly" visibility etc.
When there is a will, there is a way.
** Martin
-- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*