I'm 50/50 here.
I agree that it will make it simpler for your use case but in the same time
it will make it possible to expose the parameters+model constructor as
public in YourPage and the problem will become a RuntimeException while at
the moment it is just not possible (i.e. a compile error). Ad
On 7/10/2014 3:43 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
I
think
org.apache.wicket.Page#Page(org.apache.wicket.request.mapper.parameter.PageParameters,
org.apache.wicket.model.IModel) is private to make it explicit that a
page with PageParameters is bookmarkable and possibly stateless, and a Page
with IMod
Hi,
On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 12:54 AM, Garret Wilson
wrote:
> Everyone,
>
> Let's say I want to make a base page, extending WebPage. I want to make it
> flexible so that subpages may initialize either using a model or page
> parameters. So I try to do this:
>
> protected BasePage()
> {
>
Everyone,
Let's say I want to make a base page, extending WebPage. I want to make
it flexible so that subpages may initialize either using a model or page
parameters. So I try to do this:
protected BasePage()
{
this(null, null);
}
protected BasePage(final IModel model
