> Yes, would make more sense if the Form#inputChanged invoke an
> visitVisibleAndEnabledFormComponentsPostOrder method.
> Is ok to provide and use such API in the 1.4?
> But even without this visitor change in the 1.4, you can use the
> IFormVisitorParticipant interface to stop it from going deeper.

I don't want to do anything. I just want it to work. That's what this fix does.


**
Martin

>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Martin Makundi <
> martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Hi Martin, I know your concern, but is the visitor responsibility to
>> don't
>> > go deeper in not visible components if your logic require such
>> restriction.
>> > I attached on the ticket an test case demonstrating how it can be done.
>> > Basically you provide an implementation to the IFormVisitorParticipant
>> > interface returning false when the component is not visible.
>> >
>> > P.S. I just realise that I was voting in an not related voting thread.
>>
>> That is true. But it is the built-in form visitor that has this issue.
>>
>> Please dont' revert this fix before fixing the formcomponent visitor ;]
>>
>> **
>> Martin
>>
>>
>> >
>> >> [WICKET-3166] - isVisibleInHierarchy() possibly unnecessarily checks
>> >> children whose parents are invisible?
>> >> I'm +1 to revert the change at this ticket because we start to make
>> >> unnecessary visibility checks due an recursion that always stack calls
>> to
>> >> every component parent. I know it is important to respect any parent
>> >> visibility restriction, but if the component has an restriction by
>> itself,
>> >> than we don't need to code such parent test.
>> >
>> >
>> > If child is not designed to be visible it may throw exception at
>> > child.isVisible. This fix was originally to prevent child.isVisible
>> > being called when parent is not visible.
>> >
>> > Reverting this fix might break applications and there is a test case
>> > attached that will demonstrate this issue.
>> >
>> > **
>> > Martin
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
>> >
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
>

Reply via email to