I don't see a problem with it. Martijn
On 11/4/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > fine with me > > -igor > > > On 11/4/07, Al Maw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > At the moment, you can't set the number of items on an > > AbstractPageableView without it also calling getRowCount(). > > > > The reason for this is that internalSetRowsPerPage(int) calls > > setCurrentPage(0), and that itself does a check to see if the page index > > you're setting is out of range, which causes a getRowCount() to be > > triggered. > > > > There are two reasons I don't like this: > > > > It's an extra call to getRowCount(). Sure, you could cache this count, > > but I see no reason to check the size if you're setting the current page > > to zero. > > > > The main reason I don't like it is that it means you need to know the > > size when you construct your component. This makes it hard to write > > subclasses that do set-up in their constructor, as the super-constructor > > will be calling getRowCount() potentially before you've done that set-up > > in your chained subclass constructor. It's annoying. > > > > So, the question is, would anyone object if I changed > > AbstractPageableView#setCurrentPage(int) so that if you pass in zero, it > > doesn't bother doing the getPageCount() check? > > > > Regards, > > > > Al > > > -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/
