I think there is, make really a transparant container But that is some work and not something for 1.3
On 3/28/08, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > >
