Re: How to hide ListView rows the right way?

2010-11-09 Thread MattyDE
7zark7 i dont get your point. have you answered to the right thread? any other hints? -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/How-to-hide-ListView-rows-the-right-way-tp3032125p3033271.html Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
Hi, no offense meant, but the rhetoric in this thread is getting more and more ridiculous. Chicken? Component hierarchy hell? Seriously? At most maybe component hierarchy slight annoyance. I am not at all convinced that this is a good idea. In my opinion, one of the strongest and best points

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
I frankly don't see any way to have this auto-hierarchy stuff without getting lots of unnecessary ambiguity and sources of bugs. I totally agree with what Eelco wrote below, and what someone else said about the Python way of having only *one* way to do *one* thing. Would you be happy if there

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! So far, I have often heard about people not liking the requirement to match the code hierarchy in the markup. Most (not all!) of them have never actually used Wicket (I know this doesn't apply to Martin). Not once have I seen a convincing productive(!) example of where it was an actual

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:20:12 +0200 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: I frankly don't see any way to have this auto-hierarchy stuff without getting lots of unnecessary ambiguity and sources of bugs. I totally agree with what Eelco wrote below, and what someone else

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:23:27 +0200 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Hi! So far, I have often heard about people not liking the requirement to match the code hierarchy in the markup. Most (not all!) of them have never actually used Wicket (I know this doesn't apply

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! Coding friction? Yes. Every time I need to look at somebody else's code and try to figure out what exactly they did. Ah.. so you are trying to solve your problem probably from the wrong end? If you have bad warriors give them plastic swords so they can hurt nobody? Training, Coding dojos,

Wicket ajax-enabled enclosures

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! Does wicket:enclosure have capability to setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag ? What I mean is that when I have: wicket:enclosure child=optional-field tr tdoptional content/td tdinput type=text wicket:id=optional-field//td /tr /wicket If I set it invisible via ajax I cannot set it visible

Re: Configuration of AbstractCalendar

2010-11-09 Thread Jan Ferko
Thanks, I figured it out. I have one more question ... can i use wicket behaviour to retrieve selected date from calendar or i have to write some JS hacks to do it? On 11/06/2010 06:38 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: i think its whatever format the yui component expects. -igor On Fri, Nov 5,

wicket 1.4.12 first time page visit

2010-11-09 Thread fachhoch
we noticed first time visit to the page is slow compared to next visits, we are using wicket 1.4.12, is there anything I can do to improve performance. -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/wicket-1-4-12-first-time-page-visit-tp3034418p3034418.html Sent

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
This is pretty much exactly what I'd do given such a requirement. If something is so different as to require a different internal hierarchy, it's no longer the same component. Make a new component and use standard OO techniques for code reuse, like Frank wrote here. This certainly is not worth

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 14:21:46 +0200 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Here we finally come to an actual argument about this: Panel is not reusable enough because it has its own markup. If I override its markup, it stops working. Frank wrote in another message how to deal

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:01:28 +0200 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Hi! Coding friction? Yes. Every time I need to look at somebody else's code and try to figure out what exactly they did. Ah.. so you are trying to solve your problem probably from the wrong end?

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Vitaly Tsaplin
In simple cases it makes no difference. It makes real difference with some complex widgets (for example search components) that must be reused on many pages and they should render differently on each page depending on how much space and what context they are in. I don't like duplicating code

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Also making skins for different devices / screen sizes becomes easier. ** Martin 2010/11/9 Vitaly Tsaplin vitaly.tsap...@gmail.com: In simple cases it makes no difference. It makes real difference with some complex widgets (for example search components) that must be reused on many pages and

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! Isn't this exactly the reason we've got CSS? It's just the buzz, not the reality. Unfortunately often CSS doesn't quite cut it: * http://blog.iconara.net/2007/09/21/the-failure-of-css/ HTML shouldn't really be used for lookfeel and the size and placement of components can perfectly be

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
your proposal is to wicket, what auto-generating-java-servlet-code is to a JSP (~ what a tied-and-deciding-designer-code was to a programmer-code in the past) that is, simply going back to hell :) why don't you stay on JSP domain, instead, sir? Please have some patience, just watch and see

RE: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Frank Silbermann
Well then, why don't you have your base panel provide methods that generate the individual components, with methods that implement composite behaviors involving groups of components. Your constructor can call the component-creation methods to assemble the component hierarchy to match the HTML.

Re: Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread armandoxxx
Just to let everyone know, this is just a simple imeplementation, there are no events triggered on draggable and therefore no methods called, so if anyone needs it just implement it .. So all the NPE checks and that kinda stuff is still needed ! All I needed for my case was to get the dropped

Wicket Training - London, Munich, Bangalore, Amsterdam, Brussels

2010-11-09 Thread Cemal Bayramoglu
Public Wicket courses for autumn/winter 2010 are scheduled as follows: London [1]: Jan8-9(Sat-Sun), Jan10-11(Mon-Tue), Feb5-6(Sat-Sun), Feb7-8(Mon-Tue) Munich [1][2]: Nov11-12(Thu-Fri), Q1 TBD Amsterdam [1][3]: Nov11-12(Thu-Fri), Q1/Q2 TBD Bangalore [1]: Q1/Q2 TBD Brussels [3] Q1/Q2 TBD

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! I don't think there is a substitute for coding skills/talent ;))) There isn't. That's not the point. So far your argument seems to be #1 I don't like this and #2 those who don't agree with you aren't good coders. Bad coding was your argument, not mine ;) I simply don't allow bad coders

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:05:39 -0500 James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: I think we need to try to put our heads together on this one. I don't necessarily think this approach is the best, but I haven't really had a chance to wrap my head around it yet, frankly. Do we really think

Re: Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Can it automatically detect which draggable dropped on droppable landing spot? ** Martin 2010/11/9 armandoxxx armando@dropchop.com: Hey Just needed this so I wrote a simple implementation of Drag and Drop for JQuery javascript lib. So if anyone needs it .. be my guest to comment

Re: Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread armandoxxx
/** * Notification method that a drop happened on this component. * @param theComponent reference to dropped component. */ protected void onDrop(final AjaxRequestTarget theTarget, final Component theComponent) { System.out.println(Dropped: +

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread manuelbarzi
your proposal is to wicket, what auto-generating-java-servlet-code is to a JSP (~ what a tied-and-deciding-designer-code was to a programmer-code in the past) that is, simply going back to hell :) why don't you stay on JSP domain, instead, sir? On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Matthias Keller

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Matthias Keller
Hi Martin Isn't this exactly the reason we've got CSS? HTML shouldn't really be used for lookfeel and the size and placement of components can perfectly be defined using CSS classes. Matt On 2010-11-09 13:34, Martin Makundi wrote: Also making skins for different devices / screen sizes

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
For what it's worth, I agree with these sentiments. I am not jazzed about this whole auto hierarchy idea. I too like the predictability of Wicket and I don't mind staying within the confines of a strict hierarchy. I've kept quiet until now because I really don't have the time to jump into this

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:49 AM, manuelbarzi manuelba...@gmail.com wrote: why don't you stay on JSP domain, instead, sir? Let's keep it civil here folks. Can we agree to disagree without being disagreeable? - To unsubscribe,

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread manuelbarzi
may it be enough just create an independent simple html-code-processor-to-wicket-java-code-tool, that would auto-generate that tedious code you would like to avoid? a simple java-class-processor-tool may help for that... possible an eclipse-wicket-plugin-tool, if it doesn't already exists... On

Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread armandoxxx
Hey Just needed this so I wrote a simple implementation of Drag and Drop for JQuery javascript lib. So if anyone needs it .. be my guest to comment (and/or diSS) on it Put on your page, app or anywhere else cause you need this !!! wicket:head wicket:linklink rel=stylesheet type=text/css

Re: Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread armandoxxx
Hey guys .. 10x for sharing .. Was looking for it .. but didn't find anything so I implemented it on my own;) Regards Armando -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Wicket-JQuery-drag-and-drop-behaviors-tp3033676p3034347.html Sent from the Users

Re: Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread julien roche AKA indiana_jules
Hi Armandoxxx, If you want, you have too an implementation for your case with wiQuery (see: http://wiquery-examples-1-1-x.appspot.com/?wicket:bookmarkablePage=:org.odlabs.wiquery.examples.droppable.DroppablePage). But your approach is very ligthweight !! Regards Julien On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at

RE: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Frank Silbermann
As an alternative, suppose that one's non-panel compound component contained a map from wicket-id's to components. The hierarchy could be encoded in a lisp-like string; the component's constructor could parse the string and create the component hierarchy to match. The hierarchy string could be a

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Well then, why don't you have your base panel provide methods that generate the individual components, with methods that implement composite behaviors involving groups of components. Your constructor can call the component-creation methods to assemble the component hierarchy to match the

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
So instead of asking, How can we make Wicket different so that my problem will go away? the proper question to try first is, What is the Wicket way of solving my problem? That's not how proggress is made... ** Martin -Original Message- Fro

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Grigorov
I think we have to make a vote whether this feature has to be investigated further. There are over 90 mails in the thread and I have the feeling that only Martin Makundi likes the idea. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 3:46 PM, Frank Silbermann frank.silberm...@fedex.com wrote: Well then, why don't you

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: That's not how proggress is made... Well, it's at least a sane place to start. Figuring out how Wicket can be used as-is to solve your problem lets you know if it's really a problem or not. If this can

RE: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Frank Silbermann
Progress is made by people who have understanding, not by the ignorant. You're not in a position to make suggestions about extending Wicket if you don't yet understand how to use the powers it already has. -Original Message- From: Martin Makundi

SV: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Wilhelmsen Tor Iver
That's not how proggress is made... No, but there are dozens of web frameworks, why try to progress Wicket into something that works in a way there perhaps already is another framework does? What you propose sounds close to how Tapestry already works, for instance... - Tor Iver

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
That's not how proggress is made... Well, it's at least a sane place to start.  Figuring out how Wicket can be used as-is to solve your problem lets you know if it's really a problem or not. I've been dabbling with Wicket for 2,5 years now, and I have now finally come up with this request

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Progress is made by people who have understanding, not by the ignorant. You're not in a position to make suggestions about extending Wicket if you don't yet understand how to use the powers it already has. I feel I understand its powers and limitations. Its powers have not shown to be a

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 17:23:18 +0200 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: So instead of asking, How can we make Wicket different so that my problem will go away? the proper question to try first is, What is the Wicket way of solving my problem? That's not how proggress

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Well.. that's what we are doing, at runtime. ** Martin 2010/11/9 manuelbarzi manuelba...@gmail.com: may it be enough just create an independent simple html-code-processor-to-wicket-java-code-tool, that would auto-generate that tedious code you would like to avoid? a simple

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
I think we need to try to put our heads together on this one. I don't necessarily think this approach is the best, but I haven't really had a chance to wrap my head around it yet, frankly. Do we really think this is that big of a problem that we need to change the whole paradigm of the framework

Re: Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro
Armando, Thanks for sharing. Did you know about [1] and [2]? Regards, Ernesto 1-http://code.google.com/p/wiquery/source/browse/trunk/src/main/java/org/odlabs/wiquery/ui/draggable/DraggableAjaxBehavior.java

RE: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread John Owen
Do we really think this is that big of a problem that we need to change the whole paradigm of the framework to address it? IMO, No. -Original Message- From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On Behalf Of James Carman Sent: Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: I've been dabbling with Wicket for 2,5 years now, and I have now finally come up with this request for the core wicketeers to show us the correct way to patch this particular issue. I'm not necessarily

Re: wicket 1.4.12 first time page visit

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Grigorov
From which version did you upgrade ? I guess 1.4.8 (extracted from your recent mails about wicketstuff-push). You can start any Java profiler (JProfiler, YourKit, ...) and see what is slow. On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:08 PM, fachhoch fachh...@gmail.com wrote: we noticed first time visit to the

Re: Wicket JQuery drag and drop behaviors

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Nice. ** Martin 2010/11/9 armandoxxx armando@dropchop.com: /**         * Notification method that a drop happened on this component.         * @param theComponent  reference to dropped component.         */        protected void onDrop(final AjaxRequestTarget theTarget, final

Re: Wicket ajax-enabled enclosures

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! Has this been attempted before? Would it be a good idea to go at it? Sure would help removing some boilerplate webmarkupcontainer code. Existing jira issue for this? ** Martin 2010/11/9 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com: Hi! Does wicket:enclosure have capability to

Re: Wicket ajax-enabled enclosures

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Grigorov
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Hi! Has this been attempted before? Would it be a good idea to go at it? Sure would help removing some boilerplate webmarkupcontainer code. Existing jira issue for this? At least I haven't seen one.

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
At the same time, you have not responded to valid criticisms like the problems with enabledInHierarchy (at least I haven't seen any such response). @Carl-Erik Reason why I haven't commented your enabledInHierarchy comment is because it would not afect it in any way. I hope the proposition

Re: Wicket ajax-enabled enclosures

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
It is pretty similar syntax to wicket:message. any pointers how to implement it or if there would be some pitfalls? I understand transarent markup containers are somewhat tricky? ** Martin 2010/11/9 Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Martin Makundi

RE: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Frank Silbermann
If the component hierarchy can be changed without changing behavior or semantics, then why are the components in a hierarchy to begin with? Why aren't all the components being moved around already siblings at the same level? Does Wicket require that the order of sibling Wicket components match

Re: Wicket ajax-enabled enclosures

2010-11-09 Thread Brian Topping
It's the same pattern as the last suggestion you had: 1) Generate a patch with a Quickstart that demonstrates the proposed functionality 2) Attach it to a Jira issue First impressions matter a lot, so if you post the Jira without the code, it's going to get ignored, possibly even after you

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frank Silbermann frank.silberm...@fedex.com wrote: If the component hierarchy can be changed without changing behavior or semantics, then why are the components in a hierarchy to begin with? Why aren't all the components being moved around already siblings at

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
You could do that, but I think Martin is trying to take it a step further allowing you to have an arbitrary hierarchy in your markup and just figure it out at runtime.  Wicket doesn't care what order you add stuff to the page/component as long as they're all on the same level within the

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Yes, and if  they are at different levels in the hierarchy, Wicket can figure that out also, at runtime. What happens if a sub-component changes one of the ids of one of its components that it contains?

Cannot get current page from AjaxPagingNavigator

2010-11-09 Thread Vishal Popat
Hi all, For some reason I cannot get the current page number. This is the relevant part of my code: PageableListView dataList = new PageableListView(dataList, results, 10) { protected void populateItem(ListItem item) { .. } }

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! What happens if a sub-component changes one of the ids of one of its components that it contains?  Is that then going to break your page because it's going to grab that id from you? Igor explained that # Components can be queued to any container, and can only be added to the hierarchy

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 17:46:13 +0200 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: @Carl-Erik Reason why I haven't commented your enabledInHierarchy comment is because it would not afect it in any way. I hope the proposition will be clear when we have it ready. We are working on

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:51:49 -0500 James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frank Silbermann frank.silberm...@fedex.com wrote: If the component hierarchy can be changed without changing behavior or semantics, then why are the components in a hierarchy

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
one of the nice things of wicket is that java-code (programmer) and html-code (designer) are quite independent. only watching a wicket-java-file does a programmer deduce the structure and behaviour of the corresponding view, both things, without fully depending on inspecting html for

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 18:04:44 +0200 Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Igor explained that # Components can be queued to any container, and can only be added to the hierarchy that stems from that container, thereby solving the security requirement

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Say you have two forms on one panel (don't know if this is the best example or not, but here goes).  You want to move a field from one panel to another.  You'd have to do that in code with the traditional approach.  With the queued approach, you'd just queue all your components to the parent

Updating model object on AjaxFallbackDefaultDataTable page change

2010-11-09 Thread Matt Schmidt
I have a CheckGroup that contains an AjaxFallbackDefaultDataTable that has a column containing a Check. As long as I click my submit button while on the first page of the DataTable, the model object of the CheckGroup is updated as expected with the items I had checked. However, if I check some

Re: Configuration of AbstractCalendar

2010-11-09 Thread Igor Vaynberg
the value should be available in the formcomponent's model the datepicker is attached to. -igor On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Jan Ferko julyl...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks, I figured it out. I have one more question ... can i use wicket behaviour to retrieve selected date from calendar or i

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Igor explained that # Components can be queued to any container, and can only be added to the hierarchy that stems from that container, thereby solving the security requirement

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
What happens if a sub-component changes one of the ids of one of its components that it contains?  Is that then going to break your page because it's going to grab that id from you? Also depends what you mean by a component. A panel sitting on a panel has its own markup so it won't grab

Re: Cannot get current page from AjaxPagingNavigator

2010-11-09 Thread jcgarciam
You are using an static model, which only knows about the value by the time of construction. Use a dynamic model i.e: (make sure you define pagination as final) Label currentPage = new Label(currentPage, new LoadableDetachableModel(){ public Object load(){ return

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: When fragments are added they materialize as natural markup at the junction point? I don't know the answer to that. I'm asking, myself. :) Just trying to make sure the queue approach doesn't break with

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel cmen...@wicketbuch.de wrote: I think you misunderstood Frank's point. Why are the components in a hierarchy in the first place, if the hierarchy can be changed without changing behavior or semantics? They can simply be flat in the parent then.

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
https://github.com/ivaynberg/wicket/tree/component-queuing Sorry, I was thinking for some reason that the depth-first search through the current component's hierarchy would actually traverse into subcomponent's markup, but I don't think it will.  It will stay within the current component's

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread manuelbarzi
Martin, isn't it all a matter of principles towards keeping a correct separation of concerns? one of the nice things of wicket is that java-code (programmer) and html-code (designer) are quite independent. only watching a wicket-java-file does a programmer deduce the structure and behaviour of

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
@Carl-Erik Reason why I haven't commented your enabledInHierarchy comment is because it would not afect it in any way. I hope the proposition will be clear when we have it ready. We are working on Igor's proposal. It will be interesting to see how you propose not affecting something that

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Sebastian
From my understanding the proposal works like this that you have a partially code controlled hierarchy of components when you need it for functional reasons (security, AJAX refresh, visibility, etc). You can define the parent of a component but technical you allow child components being nested

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Yeah ids must be unique per each level and ofcourse if you have markup like: div wicket:id=adiv wicket:id=a/div/div If you have code like: panel {  queue(a(a));  a.queue(a(a)); } This could be a

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Carl-Eric Menzel
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 11:33:31 -0500 James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: Say you have two forms on one panel (don't know if this is the best example or not, but here goes). You want to move a field from one panel to another. You'd have to do that in code with the traditional

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Igor Vaynberg
so queue each formcomponet under the form they belong to. that way they cannot be moved outside the form. -igor On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:46 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: Yeah ids

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
PS: I think much of this controversy could have been streamlined by pointing to a concept-complete implementation or at least making a properly thought-out suggestion, instead of all the name-calling that went on. (Almost) No offense taken, just a suggestion for the future. My apologies. I am

Re: Cannot get current page from AjaxPagingNavigator

2010-11-09 Thread Pedro Santos
Use an dinamic model, ex: Label currentPage = new Label(currentPage, new AbstractReadOnlyModelString() { public String getObject() { return pagination.getPageable().getCurrentPage(); } }); On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Vishal Popat

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:47 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel cmen...@wicketbuch.de wrote: Are you moving a field from one form to another? But that does change the semantics, doesn't it? If it doesn't, why are there two forms? Both forms edit one particular object (say a Person). They just edit

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 7:36 AM, John Owen jo...@globalscape.com wrote: Do we really think this is that big of a problem that we need to change the whole paradigm of the framework to address it? it will not be changing the paradigm. it is adding a new method for you to add components. use it if

RE: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Frank Silbermann
I don't understand your example. You have two forms on one panel. You wish to move a field (of one of the forms?) to another panel. Doesn't that imply that you've taken the field out of the form? -Original Message- From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: so queue each formcomponet under the form they belong to. that way they cannot be moved outside the form. That's what happens in code not markup. You could potentially change what gets edited by the form merely by

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Igor Vaynberg
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:10 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel cmen...@wicketbuch.de wrote: On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 10:51:49 -0500 James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 10:48 AM, Frank Silbermann frank.silberm...@fedex.com wrote: If the component hierarchy can be changed

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
That's what happens in code not markup.  You could potentially change what gets edited by the form merely by moving fields around in the markup. With compoundpropertymodels yes if you don't restrict components inside a form this can happen. For good or for bad. For security reasons in

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Igor Vaynberg
um. no. queued components cannot be moved out of their parent. so if you queued field1 under form1 and the designer moves the tag tied to field1 outside the tag tied to form1 you will get the same error you would get now. -igor On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:50 AM, James Carman

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: For security reasons in general, you might want to use: formA.queue(formAstuff); formB.queue(formBstuff); But then you're right back where you started. Why not just add and not queue?

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: um. no. queued components cannot be moved out of their parent. so if you queued field1 under form1 and the designer moves the tag tied to field1 outside the tag tied to form1 you will get the same error you would get

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:50 AM, Frank Silbermann frank.silberm...@fedex.com wrote: I don't understand your example.  You have two forms on one panel.  You wish to move a field (of one of the forms?) to another panel.  Doesn't that imply that you've taken the field out of the form? Not to

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Igor Vaynberg
ive outlined a couple of usecases when this is useful in another email. see there. -igor On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 8:56 AM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: For security reasons in general,

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Igor Vaynberg
yes, and that would of course be a mistake. if you just queue everything into the page you can cause serious security problems. sometimes you have a hard container you want your components to live under, and other times you dont care. you should always queue into the hard container, just like you

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 11:55 AM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: For security reasons in general, you might want to use: formA.queue(formAstuff); formB.queue(formBstuff); But then you're right back where you started.  Why not just add and not queue?

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: yes, and that would of course be a mistake. if you just queue everything into the page you can cause serious security problems. sometimes you have a hard container you want your components to live under, and other

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
The point is that this new approach can allow the designer to move things around, potentially changing the semantics of how things work. For example, a TextField may have validators set up on it that are applicable within the context of one type of form, but may be completely inappropriate in

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/forum/PrintPost.jtp?post=3034640 Did you mean to try to make me print this post? - To

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/forum/PrintPost.jtp?post=3034640 Did you mean to try to make me print this post? Hehe... I did not find antoher way to point to a single post ;] ** Martin

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread James Carman
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Martin Makundi martin.maku...@koodaripalvelut.com wrote: (You) as a coder will be responsible for opening that can ;] For good and for bad. Not wicket. Nor members of this discussion. How many times have you done this: add(new TextField(...)) when you meant

Re: Free wicket from component hierarchy hell

2010-11-09 Thread Martin Makundi
Hi! First of all, normally I have junit tests that validate the functionality for me for regression purposes.  Suppose the user does: queue(new TextField(...)) which will work perfectly fine, but they meant to do (to enforce security): someSubComponent.queue(new TextField(...)) Now,

  1   2   >