I think you can just put the code to onBeforeRender().
-Matej
On 10/8/07, Sam Hough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What would the nice replacement for:
> @Override
> public void onAttach() {
> super.onAttach();
> getForm().setDefaultButton(this);
> }
> be?
>
> It leaves me in the same problem for:
> http://www.nabble.com/forum/ViewPost.jtp?post=12981244&framed=y
>
> I don't think anybody answered the question about
> Component.checkHierarchyChange(final Component c)
>
> I know I've been a pain in the **** but I'm just trying not to stick my
> customer with a custom version of Wicket or something with a short shelf
> life.
>
>
>
>
> Johan Compagner wrote:
> >
> > as long as we have the page.onAttach() that is called when it is called
> > from
> > a session
> > (as it is now) then it is fine by me
> >
> >
> > On 10/7/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Also this would mean preserving page.onAttach, which would be the
> >> first method called after page is taken from session, so that if user
> >> need this event, they would get it (from there they can even cascade
> >> it to other components, but we wouldn't do it by default).
> >>
> >> -Matej
> >>
> >> On 10/7/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > what good is the onAttach method? We shouldn't encourage users
> >> > initializing data upfront, as they should do it lazily on first
> >> > demand. Attaching is also unreliable as when first time the page is
> >> > attached, components inside repeaters aren't even built yet.
> >> >
> >> > So I think we should remove onAttach while we can. The benefit would
> >> > be that the code would get less bloated and we'd also save quite a few
> >> > traversals (look at MarkupContainer.internalAttach2(). Looks rather
> >> > scary).
> >> >
> >> > -Matej
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Remove-%28on%29attach--tf4583596.html#a13092729
> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
