Re: Is wicket:extend strictly required if including entire html child?
It is slightly ironic. Java, when we change default behaviour - we annotate methods with @Override. Its not a dissimilar solution. I can appreciate both decisions. Same same but different. What's the "norm" coding wise - what's more convenient? - I think when the answer is "depends" - you can go either way. Antony Stubbs wrote: > > That's a pity - in my situation I would like the absence of the > wicket:extend tag to mean the child wants to be completely encapsulated by > it's parent. > It's useful because you can have your java class extend a parent without > having to modify the html, in my case the grand parent has the important > html that I want included in all children, but that means i have to put > the extend tag into all the children, instead of just one place - the > parent. > > > igor.vaynberg wrote: >> >> no it is not. not including wicket:extend means the child wants to >> completely override the markup of the parent. >> >> -igor >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-wicket%3Aextend-strictly-required-if-including-entire-html-child--tp20975395p21138307.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Is wicket:extend strictly required if including entire html child?
That's a pity - in my situation I would like the absence of the wicket:extend tag to mean the child wants to be completely encapsulated by it's parent. It's useful because you can have your java class extend a parent without having to modify the html, in my case the grand parent has the important html that I want included in all children, but that means i have to put the extend tag into all the children, instead of just one place - the parent. igor.vaynberg wrote: > > no it is not. not including wicket:extend means the child wants to > completely override the markup of the parent. > > -igor > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Antony Stubbs > wrote: >> >> Is it possible to use markup inheritance without having to use >> in the children? I'd like to be able to use MI without >> the >> children html knowing. Just extending the super component should be >> enough >> in a lot of situations. Particularly when extending panels which are >> naughty >> and don't have tags, and dont have any html which shouldn't >> be >> in the result. >> >> I.e. can we have wicket default to simply effectively wrapping the entire >> html contents in if there is no extend tag? >> >> - >> ___ >> >> http://stubbisms.wordpress.com http://stubbisms.wordpress.com >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Is-wicket%3Aextend-strictly-required-if-including-entire-html-child--tp20975395p20975395.html >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> - >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >> >> > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > - ___ http://stubbisms.wordpress.com http://stubbisms.wordpress.com -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-wicket%3Aextend-strictly-required-if-including-entire-html-child--tp20975395p21129599.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Is wicket:extend strictly required if including entire html child?
no it is not. not including wicket:extend means the child wants to completely override the markup of the parent. -igor On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Antony Stubbs wrote: > > Is it possible to use markup inheritance without having to use > in the children? I'd like to be able to use MI without the > children html knowing. Just extending the super component should be enough > in a lot of situations. Particularly when extending panels which are naughty > and don't have tags, and dont have any html which shouldn't be > in the result. > > I.e. can we have wicket default to simply effectively wrapping the entire > html contents in if there is no extend tag? > > - > ___ > > http://stubbisms.wordpress.com http://stubbisms.wordpress.com > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Is-wicket%3Aextend-strictly-required-if-including-entire-html-child--tp20975395p20975395.html > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Is wicket:extend strictly required if including entire html child?
Is it possible to use markup inheritance without having to use in the children? I'd like to be able to use MI without the children html knowing. Just extending the super component should be enough in a lot of situations. Particularly when extending panels which are naughty and don't have tags, and dont have any html which shouldn't be in the result. I.e. can we have wicket default to simply effectively wrapping the entire html contents in if there is no extend tag? - ___ http://stubbisms.wordpress.com http://stubbisms.wordpress.com -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-wicket%3Aextend-strictly-required-if-including-entire-html-child--tp20975395p20975395.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
