On 10/31/07, Korbinian Bachl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Matej,
Hi
Sorry for negative response, I just don't see any benefits that would
outweight the drawbacks.
no need to be sorry. That was exactly what I hoped to come. If sb. has a
new Idea, he believes its good and usually dont see
no, but wicket does have wicket:enclosure to do what you want.
wicket:enclosure
ul
li wicket:id=listspan wicket:id=label/span/li
/ul
/wicket:enclosure
Martijn
On 10/31/07, Korbinian Bachl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn Dashorst schrieb:
Have you actually tried the code you wrote? It would
Hi,
after creating yet another WebMarkupContainer to allow a ajaxified
resultset, i wondered why we are forced to this? - I mean, im not a JS
guru, but why do we have to create abstract containers to let some
content change? I know that we need a hook (namely an tag with id) but
couldnt this
a patch is welcome :)
-igor
On 10/30/07, Korbinian Bachl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
after creating yet another WebMarkupContainer to allow a ajaxified
resultset, i wondered why we are forced to this? - I mean, im not a JS
guru, but why do we have to create abstract containers to let some
I know Igor :)
but im currently in the situation where im not sure if it would work...
furthermore, im not sure how to access the new generated page as well as
accessing the old page (or better said: the markup of it)
Igor Vaynberg schrieb:
a patch is welcome :)
-igor
On 10/30/07,
Korbinian Bachl wrote / napísal(a):
Hi,
Hi
after creating yet another WebMarkupContainer to allow a ajaxified
resultset, i wondered why we are forced to this? - I mean, im not a JS
guru, but why do we have to create abstract containers to let some
content change?
You need to create
