isnt it possible that we have a transparent resolver or something like that that is the closure? so that that one can be set visible or not and then we dont have to touch the children those are just one step deeper (but not really)
johan On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well, the problem here is a bit more complicated. > > what if the user overrides isivisible. i think what we want here is > another flag, kind of like isrenderallowed, but something that we can > push...thoughts? > > -igor > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:47 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > the problem with setVisible is that it is a version change.. > > So if we disable that quickly before changing the variable then its > fine by > > me to change that > > That can be default behavior by the way if you ask me > > > > component.setVersioned(false) > > component.doWhatYouWant() > > component.setVersioned(true) > > > > > > johan > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > i guess all this nastiness stems from the facts that we resolve > > > enclosures at render time and at that time we restrict calls to > > > setvisible() because we consider it a hierarchy change. > > > > > > if we relax that at least for isvisible() calls then inside the > > > enclosureresolver all we have to do is iterate over its direct > > > children and call setvisible(false) on them if enclosure is hidden. > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:43 AM, Igor Vaynberg < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > wrote: > > > > ive just attached a draft patch to WICKET-1391. its kinda hacky, so > i > > > > want to see if anyone can come up with a more elegant way to do > this. > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > >
