right.   not only that, but the children can't go away because they might
become visible again.

i guess i don't see any way around the flag you were talking about.


igor.vaynberg wrote:
> 
> 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.
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/WICKET-1391%3A-anyone-got-any-better-ideas--tp16323672p16346365.html
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Reply via email to