because enclosure itself does not have children -igor
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:33 PM, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > okay. sorry, i'm kinda playing catch up here... > > one last (maybe ignorant) question. so, when the invisible enclosure is > removed at the end of rendering, couldn't it/wicket just remove all of its > children then? if the enclosure contents never rendered, why leave > components in there? this would reduce state as well. > > if i'm still not getting it, maybe we can talk on ##wicket tomorrow to avoid > more list emails. > > jon > > > > > igor.vaynberg wrote: > > > > well, yes! but the problem is when the form is submitted the enclosure > > is no longer there, because it is auto. further it is not in the > > hierarchy, whatever is inside is driven by markup only... > > > > -igor > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Jonathan Locke > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> yeah, but didn't the original bug come from a form component that got a > >> value set on it when it was in an invisible enclosure? if the traversal > >> knew about these transparent enclosures, it could check their visibility > >> (they wouldn't be transparent to the traversal). then those form > >> components > >> inside the enclosure would never be seen in form processing. isn't that > >> more correct? or am i still missing something? > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> igor.vaynberg wrote: > >> > > >> > On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 6:53 PM, Jonathan Locke > >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> i'm definitely jumping into the middle of this, but isn't the > >> problem > >> >> that > >> >> the form component traversal is going into an auto markup container > >> >> that's > >> >> not visible? can't we change our traversal code to fix this? or am > >> i > >> >> missing some key point? > >> > > >> > a) auto components only exist during render phase > >> > b) enclosure is transparent so it is not in the hierarchy, it is to a > >> side > >> > > >> > -igor > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> igor.vaynberg 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 > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> -- > >> >> View this message in context: > >> >> > >> > http://www.nabble.com/WICKET-1391%3A-anyone-got-any-better-ideas--tp16323672p16344172.html > >> >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > >> > http://www.nabble.com/WICKET-1391%3A-anyone-got-any-better-ideas--tp16323672p16345070.html > >> > >> > >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/WICKET-1391%3A-anyone-got-any-better-ideas--tp16323672p16345212.html > > > Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >
