On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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)
you kinda hit the nail on the head: the enclosure IS an auto component that IS a transparent resolver the problem with this is that: it is auto - so it only exists during render time (autos are removed in detach()) it is a transparent resolver - that means it is not a parent of the components that are inside the enclosure markup. i was thinking about changing it. making it a non-auto webmarkupcontainer that is not transparent, and actually rewiring the children properly, but that can get hairy also in case users expect getparent() to return a certain thing... -igor > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
