Yes that is the solution that also gets my vote for 1.4 if we can implement
it
nicely and if it is backwards compartible and straightforward to use.
johan
On Nov 8, 2007 10:37 AM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi everyone,
>
> actually, i wonder what is wrong with al's suggestion
Hi Xavier,
thanks for the reply.
no do not have commit access to the wicketstuff svn, but I just applied for
it in the Wicket-Dev mailinglist as described in the wicket-stuff FAQ.
thanks again, regards
Michael
Xavier Hanin wrote:
>
> On 11/6/07, Michael Sparer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
Jan Kriesten wrote:
hi everyone,
actually, i wonder what is wrong with al's suggestion to add id's to
and ?
regards, --- jan.
That is what I'd suggest as well, since it involves the least amount of
change. As an added bonus, if no id's are added and 2
sections are used, it could throw an
hi everyone,
actually, i wonder what is wrong with al's suggestion to add id's to
and ?
regards, --- jan.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > The advantage of having this separate project
> > is that such inheritance would be available for people who like it,
> > and hey, maybe in the longer term you have something that works so
> > good that you can convince people based on something that works.
> > Executable code works much better
On 11/6/07, Michael Sparer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Salut Xavier,
Hallo Michael,
I was wondering if I could/should commit the changes I made to wicketstuff
> push to the svn. In brief, this is what I did:
>
> 1. Extended the CometdDefaultBehaviorTemplate.js with the following if
> clause
Eelco wrote:
The thing is though, even though it is 100% backwards compatible, it
is something we'll have to support. It adds complexity to the
implementation, and we'll have to answer questions about it on the
list. That would be fine if everyone would have been wildly
enthusiastic about it, bu
Hi,
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
In conclusion, the proposed change:
- is useful
- does not have to be used if you don't like it
- is 100% backwards compatible
- it introduces no new tags (if using child/extends)
The thing is though, even though it is 100% backwards c
Hi eelco.
Did you see what I changed in order to make this working? There is nearly no
extra complexity. So I think complexity isn't an argument here.
best regards
-- stefan
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
>
>> In conclusion, the proposed change:
>> - is useful
>> - does not have to
Ok, this is where i have to step aside and let the real wicket folks
take over :)
I have absolutely no clue as to what is going on here.
Maurice
On Nov 8, 2007 9:24 AM, serban.balamaci <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I forgot to look in the ajax console. Here is what it says:
> INFO: Initiating Aj
Eelco Hillenius wrote:
On Nov 7, 2007 5:53 PM, Chris Colman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
heh, wellyou can be against this, but i think if we take a vote
right now most core-devs with binding votes will vote this down
I still can't see the reason for the negativity of some of the
core-devs
hi eelco,
Assume the tag wouldn't be renamed. Then it would only be a new and optional
(!) attribute for the child/extend tags. So isn't it unnecessary to
explicitly turn on/off a feature that you could implicitly turn on as soon
as this attribute is used?
The naming - is abstract/implement bett
> In conclusion, the proposed change:
> - is useful
> - does not have to be used if you don't like it
> - is 100% backwards compatible
> - it introduces no new tags (if using child/extends)
The thing is though, even though it is 100% backwards compatible, it
is some
I forgot to look in the ajax console. Here is what it says:
INFO: Initiating Ajax GET request on
/crm/app/?wicket:interface=:1:myForm:tabs:0:customTablePanel:rows:2:cells:3:cell:-1:IUnversionedBehaviorListener&wicket:behaviorId=0&wicket:ignoreIfNotActive=true&random=0.5604639175790322
INFO: Invoki
On Nov 7, 2007 5:53 PM, Chris Colman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > heh, wellyou can be against this, but i think if we take a vote
> > right now most core-devs with binding votes will vote this down
>
> I still can't see the reason for the negativity of some of the
> core-devs: this is an
101 - 115 of 115 matches
Mail list logo
