You only need models when you have something to display (and possibly
receive)
I see..so how would you comment on a component like label (just came across
this example) where you still want to display something but can go ahead
without the usage of model like add(new Label(message,Hello
makes sense...
Thanks .
Farhan.
mfs wrote:
Guys,
Would sound like a very naive question, actually still in the process of
understand the different concepts in wicket, Wicket Models in this
particular case...so my question is
Wouldn't the below two statements act exactly the same
Nope. Typical reasons to use PropertyModels explicitly is when you
don't use a CompoundPropertyModel on the parent, or when you want to
use IDs that are different from the property expressions you want the
model to work on. Also, note that you can use completely different
models as well;
CompoundPropertyModel cpm = new CompoundPropertyModel (xxx);
Form f = new Form(form,cpm);
f.add(new TextField(username));
f.add(new TextField(notinmodel, cpm.bind(address));
Yes, that is another alternative to using property model. I didn't
mention this since it only complicates things.
complicates? its only a much smaller notation for creating a property model
And i think it reads very well.
What would be better then something reversed?
cpm.bind(textField,address)
?
But then you have to first have a reference.to the textfield.
We had such a thing in wicket 1.1
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
complicates? its only a much smaller notation for creating a property model
And i think it reads very well.
Yes, but in this particular case it doesn't let people understand
better what goes on.
What would be better then something
On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, you can write a book on in how many other ways you can do the
same thing.
I thought we already did :P
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released
Get it now:
just go back to that chapter and redo it!
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, you can write a book on in how many other ways you can do the
same thing.
I thought we already did :P
Martijn
--
Buy
AGAIN? AARGH!!!
/me points gun to head
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just go back to that chapter and redo it!
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course, you can write a book on
LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this forum,
yet to read your book though..
Farhan.
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
AGAIN? AARGH!!!
/me points gun to head
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
just go back to that chapter and redo it!
On 10/22/07, mfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this forum,
yet to read your book though..
The book is even better. You don't have to listen to Igor and Johan in it :-)
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
and miss all the fun. how boring will the book be i asked my self now.
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/07, mfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this
forum,
yet to read your book though..
The book is
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and miss all the fun. how boring will the book be i asked my self now.
You mean you didn't start reading it yet?!
Eelco
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For
must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass
comments? i wont buy it!
-igor
On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/07, mfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this forum,
yet to read your
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass
comments? i wont buy it!
It's not too late for a few quotes of you. Maybe you could write the
intro's of the chapters? :-)
Eelco
2007/10/23, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass
comments? i wont buy it!
It's not too late for a few quotes of you. Maybe you could write the
intro's of the chapters? :-)
lol, nice try :) you aint offloading any of this writing fun on me :)
-igor
On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass
comments? i wont buy it!
It's not too
Wouldn't the below two statements act exactly the same given i have a person
object (which i would say both acts as a model as well as an object to which
the form data is submitted) defined in a page.
add(new RequiredTextField(person.userName));
add(new
Eelco,
Appreciate the quick follow up, so would it be OK to assume that every
page-component has to have a Model associated with it, either the model is
individually explicitly tagged with a component e.g. add(new
RequiredTextField(dateOfBirth, new PropertyModel(person, dateOfBirth)))
OR it
Appreciate the quick follow up, so would it be OK to assume that every
page-component has to have a Model associated with it,
You only need models when you have something to display (and possibly
receive) and use components that use models (which is the case for
most components we ship, but
You only need models when you have something to display (and possibly
receive)
I see..so how would you comment on a component like label (just came across
this example) where you still want to display something but can go ahead
without the usage of model like add(new Label(message,Hello
21 matches
Mail list logo
