That would be really coool:)
Johan Compagner wrote:
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.
--
-Wicket for love
Nino Martinez Wael
Java Specialist @ Jayway DK
http://www.jayway.dk
+45 2936 7684
