If you only keep the static methods, there is no point extending the class.
If you keep both setters and static methods, it would be *very* confusing.
For example:
add(new TextField("name").add(new AttributeModifier("class",
"foo").overwrite("width","100%"));
yes, Eclipse would show a warning (for accessing a static method from
an instance), but nobody I know besides me pays much attention to
compiler warnings.
I don't think we should just use setters, since it makes it much more
verbose. I'm ok with the DSL, but only if it makes the code more
terse, not more verbose. If I have to call both 'append()' and
'separator(" ")', I'd rather call them 'setMode(APPEND)' and
'setSeparator(" ")', but I'd much more pleased with 'overwrite(" ")'.
On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 10:10 AM, Martijn Dashorst
<[email protected]> wrote:
> You can still use the constructors, nobody is taking that away. The
> idea of these static methods is that they convey meaning
> better—enhancing the readability.
>
> add(new TextField("name",
> new PropertyModel<String>(personModel, "name"))
> .add(new AttributeModifier("class", "foo")
> .setEditMode(EditMode.OVERWRITE)
> .setSeparator(" ")
> .setAddAttributeIfNotExists(true)));
>
> versus
>
> add(new TextFIeld("name",
> new PropertyModel<String>(personModel, "name"))
> .add(AttributeModifier.overwrite("class", "foo")));
>
> Martijn
>
> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 2:52 PM, tetsuo <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I'd prefer calling the constructor instead of static methods. It makes
>> it clear that you are creating a new instance, and how you could
>> extend the class if you needed to.
>>
>> Oh, and 'for' is a reserved keyword :)
>>
>> Tetsuo
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Martijn Dashorst
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jun 8, 2011 at 1:02 PM, James Carman
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> What about the separator?
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of ditching the separator as a constructor parameter, and
>>> defaulting to ' ' (space). Is there anyone who uses any other value
>>> for the separator? The attribute modifier will have a setter for the
>>> separator, so that you can do AttrbuteModifier.append("onclick",
>>> "return false;").setSeparator(";");
>>>
>>> As for the fluent api... we can add that as a bonus. I'd like to keep
>>> the shorthand for AttributeModifier.append/prepend/overwrite
>>>
>>> Might I suggest the following fluent api:
>>>
>>> AttributeModifier.for("class").overwrites().value("error");
>>> AttributeModifier.for("class").appends().value(Model.of("error"));
>>> AttributeModifier.for("onclick").prepends().value("if(!confirm('Sure?'))
>>> return false;');
>>>
>>> Or perhaps:
>>>
>>> AttributeModifier.for("class").puts("error");
>>> AttributeModifier.for("class").appends(Model.of("error"));
>>> AttributeModifier.for("onclick").prepends("if(!confirm('Sure?'))
>>> return false;');
>>>
>>> Martijn
>>>
>>> --
>>> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com
>
