making isVisible final will break many things thats not really an option But isVisible is just what it is.. It controls the state if the component has to render itself.. Whats so strange about that.
Of course we could introduce yet another flag so that we have 3 of them that defines if the component can be rendered or not isVisible is more or less the user/developers property isRenderedAllowed is security so yes using those is not really nice. johan On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah Igor... I think isVisible should *not* be considered as an option to > control wether a componet is going to be displayed or not. This method > should only present if a component *is* visible or *is not*. This means: > isVisible tells the current component's state. > > To fix this: > > - make isVisible final > - introduce another method (e.g. isRenderAllowed) > or > - let isVisible ovewritable > - introduce another method (e.g. isRendered) > > Both options have their advantagens and disadvantages. > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 2:20 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Bruno Borges > blog.brunoborges.com.br > +55 1185657739 > > "The glory of great men should always be > measured by the means they have used to > acquire it." > - Francois de La Rochefoucauld >
