It seems like 1.4.4 will throw the error, as you say
for *any* missing child declared inside enclosure's markup
but unfortunately it appears to throw it even if the child is available
by a component resolver.
Version 1.4.2 does not throw an error if the child is found via the
component resolver
I also liked the behaviour - it made the code shorter, as I did not have
to mirror the component tree in both then and else branches.
I guess it is not a big deal, except for the testing headaches - this
breaks the code at runtime :(
I now, i know - I should have test cases covering all branches
Consistency is one of wicket's strengths. My tiny vote for 1.4.4
-- Tony
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Girts Ziemelis
girts.zieme...@gmail.com wrote:
I also liked the behaviour - it made the code shorter, as I did not have to
mirror the component tree in both then and else branches.
I
Consistency is one of wicket's strengths. My tiny vote for 1.4.4
-- Tony
+1
I never interpreted wicket:enclosure (as documented) as allowing the child
attribute to reference a component anywhere else than inside the enclosure.
- Tor Iver
What about RFE for
wicket:enclosure depends-on=arbitrary-relative-component-path
stuff
/wicket:enclosure
??
**
Martin
2009/12/13 Anton Veretennikov anton.veretenni...@gmail.com:
Consistency is one of wicket's strengths. My tiny vote for 1.4.4
-- Tony
On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 3:35 PM,
I love how simple Wicket's markup is. Please keep it clean :-)
Let's keep logic in Java and markup in HTML... no mixing.
Regards,
Daan van Etten
Op 13 dec 2009, om 18:00 heeft Martin Makundi het volgende geschreven:
What about RFE for
wicket:enclosure
all,
i just migrated to 1.4.4 from 1.4.3 and looks like enclosure functionality
changed. if enclosure doesn't have child element in it, it throws exception.
for example following code works in 1.4.3
...
wicket:enclosure child=link
div.../div
/wicket:enclosure
a
hrm, already two people stumbled into this. i was of the mind that the
way it works now is the correct behavior, but i am starting to think
maybe i was incorrect...
-igor
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Vadim Tesis vad...@hotmail.com wrote:
all,
i just migrated to 1.4.4 from 1.4.3 and
...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/enclosure-changes-in-1.4.4-tp26760974p26762384.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com
From the description of the tag
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/wickets-xhtml-tags.html I think the 1.4.4
behavior would be correct, and if the example Vadim provided used to
work it would be due to a bug.
The attribute on the tag makes it clear it is a 'child' otherwise it
would have been
I ran into this and now that I know what's happening it doesn't bother me. I
think if anything the messaging is not as helpful as it could be.
1) It was identifying the wrong missing field, which I think is fixed but won't
come until 1.4.5
2) Perhaps the message should indicate that the
i think you guys misunderstand.
i believe what we are talking about here is the requirement for
presence of components *other* then the component specified by
enclosure's child attribute.
essentially if i do this:
add(new webmarkupcontainer(container).setvisible(false));
and have this in my
I did find the behavior handy, but it is easy to work around.
D/
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
i think you guys misunderstand.
i believe what we are talking about here is the requirement for
presence of components *other* then the component specified by
enclosure's
13 matches
Mail list logo
