Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-08 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
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

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-08 Thread Eelco Hillenius
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 existing

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-08 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
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:

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Well, the tags are not new, as they do the perfectly same as extend and child. Basically, the patch only introduces an id attribute to those tags in order to make linking of markup more flexible. The new names were only introduced to keep functionality of the patch separated from the existing

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Hey Chris, I would need some lobbying here! ;) -- stefan Chris Colman wrote: Wouldn't this essentially be the same as using wicket:panel id=header/ and using WebMarkupContainers on the java side? I.e.: Base Structural markup goes here (see below for explanation of this)

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Johan Compagner
ok tell me with 2 examples what is soo different about having 2 panels (or fragments) in a page and implement that in a sub page or having 2 wicket childs in a page and implement those in a sub page. A basepage can also have ofcourse an extend area and 2 panels.. johan On 11/7/07, Chris

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
Wouldn't this essentially be the same as using wicket:panel id=header/ and using WebMarkupContainers on the java side? yes it would be exactly the same thing. If you think that these are the same then you've missed some vital plot points of the movie that it child/extend.

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Mats Norén
On Nov 7, 2007 11:31 AM, Mats Norén [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm...I'm interested in seeing the difference as well. I would love to get it but right now I don't. Chris Colman wrote: This new feature, or extension of the exiting feature, allows more than one section of markup to be

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
Hmmm... more tags? I thought you guys liked Wicket because it's plain html support. Now looks like there's a big interest in having more tags. If this is true, why don't we go back a few years, or move to JSF? Let's give Wicket support to Tag Libraries too :) These aren't just like other

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
Hey Chris, I would need some lobbying here! ;) -- stefan You're doing a great job Stefan - especially now I see that you've implemented it - excellent job! Are we both seeing something here that other people can't see? It wouldn't be the first time in my life I was in that position - only

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Hi Mats, let me try to explain what Chris and I see here that others don't - may it be there or not ;) You can of course do everything with panels that could be done with multiple abstract sections (may they be named wicket:child or wicket:abstract). However, if this is the only argument, you

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Bruno Borges
You are wrong. I have a component (Panel) that has a method to return a Fragment. This component returns a default implementation of that Fragment, but pages can override that Fragment. CRUDFormPanel extends Panel { protected Fragment newFormFields(String id, Form form) { if (property

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
Given these subtle problems with this approach, I admit I'm warming to the multiple extend/child idea. im oposite - if i have X extends in a page, whose extend should be preferred (e.g: manipulating the head or a part outside of itself) ? I'm not sure I understand the issue you raise

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
And if somebody really needs 5 child areas, something else might be even messier than the page's constructor. I rather think that 2, 3 or in rare cases even 4 ids could make sense. i must disagree - i have a basepage which defines the default layout on a project, i.e. header,

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Korbinian Bachl
Given these subtle problems with this approach, I admit I'm warming to the multiple extend/child idea. im oposite - if i have X extends in a page, whose extend should be preferred (e.g: manipulating the head or a part outside of itself) ? my override of onBeforeRender is secure from your

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
But the number of added panels needn't be the number of abstract section (though it could). -- stefan Jan Kriesten wrote: hi stefan, And if somebody really needs 5 child areas, something else might be even messier than the page's constructor. I rather think that 2, 3 or in rare

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread John Krasnay
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 07:14:01PM +0100, Korbinian Bachl wrote: Given these subtle problems with this approach, I admit I'm warming to the multiple extend/child idea. im oposite - if i have X extends in a page, whose extend should be preferred (e.g: manipulating the head or a part

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Johan Compagner
i do see your point, but it is not that much different, its just another way of doing stuff. Markup inheritance does come from the border stuff. i think i was the one that proposes it when we had a meeting here now a few years ago here in Holland so that that we could border pages. Then Juergen

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Johan Compagner
huh why would java code define the layout in this example? you still have the html of the page that does the layout of those panels and the content of those panels are layout with the markup of those panels. Layout in java would be something like: component.setSize() component.setLayout() johan

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Well, if naming is your only concern, the attribute's name can easily be replaced with something else than id ... e.g. name wicket:abstract name=foo / wicket:implement name=foo some text /wicket:implement and remember that they can be optional as well: wicket:abstract / wicket:implement some

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Scott Swank
I can see how wicket:abstract and wicket:implements tags could be a nice enhancement to the current wicket:extend and wicket:child tags. Do you have a working, or mostly working, patch? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Bruno Borges
Let me paste what I commented in WICKET-1134: *I think this improvement is just more of a way to override components declared in markups of a super class. Because this is what really happens. Let's check your example: In the BasePage, there are two fragments: - subNavigation - content What

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
How can it get messy when it's not yet possible to do in wicket? i believe it has been shown multiple times already that it CAN be done with vanilla wicket... I didn't like the look of any of those 'coded' solutions. They were not from the coding elegance book I've read. They also mean I'm

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
a lot of people are saying that this can be implemented with panels, and that is true. but actually implementing this with fragments will make it look very similar to this new strategy and does not have the id collission problem, because components ARE nested in two different containers:

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Bruno Borges
Thanks for giving the best overview of my thoughts Igor. Are you reading my mind? On Nov 7, 2007 3:50 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: let me weigh in with my thoughts on this. a big problem with markup inheritance is the possibility of id collissions for example class

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Bruno Borges
just a question: do i start to convince you? ;) No... you are not... :D far far away from that But don't take it personal, my opinion is technical... only! On Nov 7, 2007 11:29 AM, Stefan Fußenegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, if naming is your only concern, the attribute's name can

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
Presumably the coded work arounds that don't rely on child/extends mean that the structural markup of each page is used instead of just that of the base page - and that would spell maintenance issues. Without using child/extend then ALL the structural markup in each page is used for each render -

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
Korbinian Bachl wrote: you missed solution3: the real-wicket-way(tm) for multiple content-places in a tied page-area: Whaaa, I seriously hope this is not the real-wicket-way! My brain hurts! A framework is supposed to make things easy and readable! The code below is just way too complicated

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread John Krasnay
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 11:31:12AM +0100, Mats Norén wrote: Is the above statement really true considering that by adding abstract methods to your page you defer the creation of the markup in just the same way as the new proposed solution? BasePage.java public BasePage() {

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
thanks! I think people become accustomed to how they used wicket up to now. Therefore, they don't see this weakness as they worked around it countless times. However, never change a running system isn't an argument to me ... and it wasn't to the first guy who said that the wheel should be round

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
Korbinian Bachl wrote: you missed solution3: the real-wicket-way(tm) for multiple content-places in a tied page-area: Whaaa, I seriously hope this is not the real-wicket-way! My brain hurts! A framework is supposed to make things easy and readable! The code below is just way too

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Jan Kriesten
hi stefan, And if somebody really needs 5 child areas, something else might be even messier than the page's constructor. I rather think that 2, 3 or in rare cases even 4 ids could make sense. i must disagree - i have a basepage which defines the default layout on a project, i.e. header,

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
From the Java-side, it isn't visible, whether a component will be placed in whatever html part. So you add all components in the constructor, yes. However, it's as messy as adding 5 components is right now ... they will just be added at different places. And if somebody really needs 5 child

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
hi johan, Johan Compagner wrote: 1 thing that does bother me a bit (but maybe i have to do a deeper look into the patch) how do you separate the components in the constructor of the sub page.. i guess you just add all the components over all the child fragments in the page itself.

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
and in extending classes you can easily do this: protected void initialize() { addToAnything(new AnyPanel(id)); addToAnything(new AnyPanel2(id2)); } So now you're proposing the Java code is defining the layout of components? That's what the markup's job is I

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
ok tell me with 2 examples what is soo different about having 2 panels (or fragments) in a page and implement that in a sub page or having 2 wicket childs in a page and implement those in a sub page. Ok, here we go... (well one example at least - it's getting late here ;) ) I'm not sure

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Korbinian Bachl
you missed solution3: the real-wicket-way(tm) for multiple content-places in a tied page-area: eg: html: ... div wicket:id=anythingPlace to put anything/div ... java: public abstract MyPage extends AnyPageExtendingWicketsWebPage { private boolean initialized = false; private

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Yes! see: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1134 -- stefan Scott Swank wrote: I can see how wicket:abstract and wicket:implements tags could be a nice enhancement to the current wicket:extend and wicket:child tags. Do you have a working, or mostly working, patch?

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Eelco Hillenius
On Nov 7, 2007 11:19 AM, Scott Swank [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I can see how wicket:abstract and wicket:implements tags could be a nice enhancement to the current wicket:extend and wicket:child tags. Do you have a working, or mostly working, patch? What I think we should do with this is make

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Korbinian Bachl
Chris Colman schrieb: The beauty of the multiple extend/child idea is that it's not a completely new concept we're talking about here - it's merely an issue of supporting n1 instead of arbitrarily fixing n=1 like it is now. 1 Question: Who dominates Who and Why? If you extend 1 class by

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
John Krasnay wrote: You've just illustrated one of the major problems with the panel-from-a-subclass approach: it's easy to get it wrong. In your example, addAbstract1 and addAbstract2 will be called in a class whose constructor has not yet been called. Consider: public DerivedPage extends

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Igor Vaynberg
read my previous reply more carefuly, instead of abstract Component getTemplateOne(String id); you can simply do: Component getTemplateOne(String id) { return new EmptyPanel(id); } now you have a non-required override of any part of markup's template... -igor On Nov 7, 2007 10:51 AM, Chris

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On Nov 7, 2007 11:22 AM, Chris Colman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How can it get messy when it's not yet possible to do in wicket? i believe it has been shown multiple times already that it CAN be done with vanilla wicket... I didn't like the look of any of those 'coded' solutions. i dont

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Igor Vaynberg
this cannot be an option. it always has to be enabled. if i write a component that uses this and someone drops it into application where this is disabled what should happen? -igor On Nov 7, 2007 1:05 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 7, 2007 11:19 AM, Scott Swank [EMAIL

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Igor Vaynberg
or you can just use a factory that lets you create transparent borders :) -igor On Nov 7, 2007 12:05 PM, Chris Colman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Presumably the coded work arounds that don't rely on child/extends mean that the structural markup of each page is used instead of just that of the

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Al Maw
Eelco Hillenius wrote: On Nov 7, 2007 1:32 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this cannot be an option. it always has to be enabled. if i write a component that uses this and someone drops it into application where this is disabled what should happen? You wouldn't write such a

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On Nov 7, 2007 1:39 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You wouldn't write such a component for general purposes obviously. ok, that right there i really really dont like. define general purpose? so now we have features in wicket that are guaranteed to work and others that arent? this

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Eelco Hillenius
On Nov 7, 2007 1:32 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this cannot be an option. it always has to be enabled. if i write a component that uses this and someone drops it into application where this is disabled what should happen? You wouldn't write such a component for general purposes

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Eelco Hillenius
On Nov 7, 2007 2:02 PM, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 7, 2007 1:39 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You wouldn't write such a component for general purposes obviously. ok, that right there i really really dont like. define general purpose? so now we have features

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Korbinian Bachl
Hi Chris, i rewinded some part of your idea and the thread and now see bit clearer what you want - perhaps you shouldnt call i multiple extend/child but more precisely inheritance with multiple areas as you go: html-basepage: ... extend id=foo / extend id=faa / wicket:child/

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Igor Vaynberg
what do we need to refactor to make a plugin like this possible? -igor On Nov 7, 2007 2:50 PM, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: some here like it and others dont like it, so wouldnt be an different project like wicket-extension the part for this? That's what I'm arguing. Though

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Korbinian Bachl
just a question to you Igor and Eelco: some here like it and others dont like it, so wouldnt be an different project like wicket-extension the part for this? couldn't this be applied similar to the wicket-jmx plugin where you just dump the jar into the classpath and have it registering and

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Eelco Hillenius
some here like it and others dont like it, so wouldnt be an different project like wicket-extension the part for this? That's what I'm arguing. Though thinking about it a little bit longer, it should probably not even be a core project, but rather a wicket-stuff one. couldn't this be applied

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Sebastiaan van Erk
Hi, I haven't really heard any real arguments against this patch. Basically it's just relaxing a constraint on the current implementation of child/extend. It's not so much a new feature as improving the current feature. I am honestly interested in why people are so against it. Igor Vaynberg

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Chris Colman
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 existing feature. If the feature sucks so bad why did people have the

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-07 Thread Al Maw
Chris Colman 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 existing feature. No offense to anyone involved,

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-06 Thread Chris Colman
Wouldn't this essentially be the same as using wicket:panel id=header/ and using WebMarkupContainers on the java side? I.e.: Base Structural markup goes here (see below for explanation of this) wicket:panel id=header / More structural markup goes here wicket:panel id=body / And

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-06 Thread Chris Colman
I totally agree with you, having named extension points would be perfect. However, I am trying to do a quick proof of concept that can be discussed before I implement all those nice and shiny features. Hopefully this prototype convinces some of those sceptics out there ;) I think the anyone

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-06 Thread Johan Compagner
Wouldn't this essentially be the same as using wicket:panel id=header/ and using WebMarkupContainers on the java side? yes it would be exactly the same thing.

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-06 Thread John Krasnay
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:23:26PM +1100, Chris Colman wrote: In the panel example you give you must still provide all of the structural markup surrounding your panel tags in EVERY page's markup in your system and if you decide to make a system wide change of this structural markup you must

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-06 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
The proposed extension would just lead to more convenience, as it saves us from having to create child pages as page/panel pairs when their are 2 panels needed (assuming no inheritance at all) John Krasnay wrote: On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:23:26PM +1100, Chris Colman wrote: In the panel

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-06 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
I posted a new message in Wicket - Dev: http://www.nabble.com/Patch%3A-Multiple-%3Cwicket%3Achild--%3E-tags-on-a-single-base-page--tf4759260.html It contains a patch that demonstrates the discussed enhancement. Please comment! -- stefan Stefan Fußenegger wrote: Hi folks, I just stumbled

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-06 Thread Evan Chooly
In our app we have a ListView into which we can dump panels for, in our case, various different filtering options depending on the page. The base page keeps a List and that's used as the model for the ListView. If the subclass doesn't add anything, nothing shows up. But the pages that need them

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Bruno Borges
How would be the Java classes, if multiple wicket:child were supported?! wicket:extend and wicket:child were build under the base concept of OOP's inheritance. looks weird to me. :D On Nov 4, 2007 9:29 PM, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The only requirement would be that if you do

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Johan Compagner
yes i agree, i dont think we will change the extend-child 1 on 1 relationship. (thats just design by inheritance) what some others want is just do it by composition and that is perfectly possible by using panels. And you can mix the 2 just fine. So Base.java/Base.html - extend -

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Eelco Hillenius wrote: It would be quite feasible to add support for multiple overridden sections using the above tag names while remaining backwards compatible with existing markup by continuing to support the old child/extends tags working the way they always have. It's kind of a

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Bruno Borges
Stefan, try first giving us an example of what would you like to do. What I can see is that you want this: BasePage.html html body h1BasePage/h1 hr/ h3This is my child:/h3 wicket:child / hr/ h3This is my OTHER child:/h3 wicket:child / /body /html ** Example of a

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Well, what I'd like to do is what I explained in my first post. One would still have a one-one-relationship if it comes to files (Base.html, Base.java - Sub.html, Sub.java). However, a Base.html might contain more than one wicket:extend /. So this no longer an exact duplicate of the parent-child

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Igor Vaynberg
this is done in MarkupCache i believe. when you load a markup file that has wicket:extend it traverses up the hierarchy and merges all the markup. -igor On 11/5/07, Stefan Fußenegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Eelco Hillenius wrote: It would be quite feasible to add support for multiple

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Igor Vaynberg
if i were you i would use tags other then extend and child just so you dont conflict. -igor On 11/5/07, Stefan Fußenegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, what I'd like to do is what I explained in my first post. One would still have a one-one-relationship if it comes to files (Base.html,

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
thanks for that advise. hey chris, keep your fingers crossed. finally you could get your wicket:abstract-wicket:override ;) stefan igor.vaynberg wrote: if i were you i would use tags other then extend and child just so you dont conflict. -igor On 11/5/07, Stefan Fußenegger [EMAIL

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Igor Vaynberg
the complement to abstract is implement not override... names are important. -igor On 11/5/07, Stefan Fußenegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: thanks for that advise. hey chris, keep your fingers crossed. finally you could get your wicket:abstract-wicket:override ;) stefan igor.vaynberg

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
well, i thought chris' suggestion to use abstract and override in order to align it with the java keyword/annotation. I don't care whether it is implement or override (but yes, names are important). i think i'll go for implement though ... but if it finally becomes part of wicket, it will become

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On 11/5/07, Stefan Fußenegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: well, i thought chris' suggestion to use abstract and override in order to align it with the java keyword/annotation. I don't care whether it is implement or override (but yes, names are important). i think i'll go for implement though

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
but why choose another name? as long as there is only one pair of however named tags, the behaviour wouldn't change at all. It would only extend the current functionality for those who place a second extension point in there html files. But I am not in the core team, but curious to look under

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Chris Colman
if i were you i would use tags other then extend and child just so you dont conflict. Yes Stefan, I would think that would be a better approach to use a new set of tags. It also allows you to choose more correct naming (because inheritance isn't actually a parent/child relationship so the

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-05 Thread Chris Colman
the complement to abstract is implement not override... names are important. Arh, sorry, I made my last post before reading yours Igor. Yes, I agree abstract/implement make a great complimentary pair. - To unsubscribe,

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-04 Thread Johan Compagner
The only requirement would be that if you do choose to support multiple abstract/overridden sections you would need to provide identifiers (just like an abstract method has a name) so that the 'compiler' (wicket) knows which section in a superclass an extended class section is overriding. In

Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Hi folks, I just stumbled on a situation where it would be useful to have two or more wicket:child / tags in a base page. Just consider a layout that consists of the usual footer, header, navigation, and content parts. But now, the content should be arranged in two columns, e.g. two different

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Igor Vaynberg
this has been discussed multiple times on this list, search the archives. the conclusion has always been that what you want can be accomplished by factory methods on the basepage that generate panels. -igor On 11/2/07, Stefan Fußenegger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi folks, I just stumbled on

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Stefan Fußenegger
Thanks for that awesomely fast reply! I found an excellent thread in the archives that explains this topic very well - I swear I searched before, but obviously with the wrong keywords ;) http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-wicket%3Achild-tags-in-the-same-page-tf3775143.html To sum it up for those

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Chris Colman
I found an excellent thread in the archives that explains this topic very well - I swear I searched before, but obviously with the wrong keywords ;) http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-wicket%3Achild-tags-in-the-same-page-tf37 75143.html Multiple child/extends pairs (where you have to see such a

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Eelco Hillenius
It would be quite feasible to add support for multiple overridden sections using the above tag names while remaining backwards compatible with existing markup by continuing to support the old child/extends tags working the way they always have. It's kind of a predictable answer, but the best

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Chris Colman
It would be quite feasible to add support for multiple overridden sections using the above tag names while remaining backwards compatible with existing markup by continuing to support the old child/extends tags working the way they always have. It's kind of a predictable answer, but the

Re: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Eelco Hillenius
There's nothing I would love more right now than to have to time to implement a patch to support multiple overridden sections in a wicket page but unfortunately time is one thing I don't seem to have much of these days. I can't believe 2007 is almost over - heck, where did this year go? Tell

RE: Multiple wicket:child / tags on a single base page?

2007-11-02 Thread Chris Colman
There's nothing I would love more right now than to have to time to implement a patch to support multiple overridden sections in a wicket page but unfortunately time is one thing I don't seem to have much of these days. I can't believe 2007 is almost over - heck, where did this year go?