| 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: | encapsulation, extension and transparent resolvers | |
|---|---|---|
| From: | Jan Kriesten (jan....@renitence.de) | |
| Date: | May 12, 2008 2:08:18 am | |
| List: | org.apache.wicket.users | |
Hi,
I'm getting a bit frustrated concerning wicket's encapsulation + extensibility, especially when it comes to transparent resolvers.
There are a couple of nice features which are dependend on other Components. Just extending/customizing them is nearly impossible when it comes to unthought usecases.
Such usecases - when described - are turned down by statements 'You are using it in an improper way, rethink your data access model.' or 'When it comes to transparent resolvers, you are on your own - implement it from scratch without them'.
In the latter, 'implement it from scratch' has significant tradeoffs: My case is implementing a DataTable with some add-on features which need make use of an transparent resolver. The encapsulation of the contained DataGridView with DataTable leaves me no option (except doing it from scratch). If I would implement a DataTable myself, I'd have to create all Components expecting a DataTable as parameter again: That just contradics Wicket's reusable components approach.
As responsive + well supported as Wicket is (I really like that a lot - and am thankful for the work the dev team is doing) - if unthought usecases occur the team is frequently denying that such usecases are valid and wouldn't bring Wicket a step further.
I know transparent resolvers are currently a major issue and can't be really handled in a proper way due to the hierarchy concept. But if things can be fixed with a workaround (until a new transparent resolver model is established) and which has no impact on the overall functionality - why can't that make it into wicket? The 'We wont support this' dogma isn't really proper argumentation.
Best regards, --- Jan.





