> match up components in html / page class simply by their ordering? Can I suggest applying the 3am test to this one? Would I get it right coding at 3am in the morning?
On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Jeremy Thomerson<[email protected]> wrote: > Why? Your code requires the same amount of work - adding an attribute > to the markup. To propose something that changes such a fundamental > part of the framework, you need to come at it with a strong argument > of WHY it should be changed. > > -- > Jeremy Thomerson > http://www.wickettraining.com > > > > > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Antony Stubbs<[email protected]> wrote: >> Assuming people didn't mind the hassle/potential problems, could we not drop >> the requirement for specifying wicket id, and instead just match up >> components in html / page class simply by their ordering? >> >> In the HTML we could just mark the component as a wicket component with >> wicket:comp="t" ? >> >> Regards, >> Antony Stubbs >> >> Talk to me about Wicket, Spring, Maven consulting, small scale outsourcing >> to Australasia and India and Open Source development! >> >> Check out the Spring Modules fork at >> http://wiki.github.com/astubbs/spring-modules ! We've just done the first >> release of the project in over a year! >> >> Website: http://sharca.com >> Blog: http://stubbisms.wordpress.com >> Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/antonystubbs >> Podcast: http://www.illegalargument.com >> >> >
