Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
Hi Jonathan, What is the result of the vote then? Or was it just a poll? Seems like many users expressed the wish to remove that feature. Is there a JIRA issue for that? Thanks, -- Jean-Baptiste Quenot aka John Banana Qwerty http://caraldi.com/jbq/ - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
wicket:container is available for 2.x. Juergen On 2/14/07, Rüdiger Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jonathan Locke schrieb: [X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future and a +1 for wicket:pseudo / wicket:container as well ;) Greetings, Rüdiger - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few thoughts about in-line component declaration. 1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain templates. In fact, it's generally discouraged in Tapestry for those reasons. 2.) Providing a fundamentally different, optional way to declare components in Wicket seems more like an unnecessary increase in ways to do it rather than a useful increase in flexibility. 3) The tooling support issue should not be underestimated. The author of the Spindle plugin for Tapestry eventually gave up on updating it for Tapestry 4 precisely because there were so many ways in which components could be defined (in the template, in the XML spec file or in Java via annotations). While experienced Tapestry users can get along just fine without that plugin, it was a big selling point for new users. In short, I think you should hold a hard line against increased functionality in templates and only make exceptions for the most compelling and common use cases (e.g. wicket:message). -Ryan On Feb 13, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Locke wrote: Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket% 3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8948008 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
On 2/14/07, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few thoughts about in-line component declaration. 1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain templates. In fact, it's generally discouraged in Tapestry for those reasons. 2.) Providing a fundamentally different, optional way to declare components in Wicket seems more like an unnecessary increase in ways to do it rather than a useful increase in flexibility. 3) The tooling support issue should not be underestimated. The author of the Spindle plugin for Tapestry eventually gave up on updating it for Tapestry 4 precisely because there were so many ways in which components could be defined (in the template, in the XML spec file or in Java via annotations). While experienced Tapestry users can get along just fine without that plugin, it was a big selling point for new users. It's good to read this from a 'regular user', and from actual experience. I'm changing my vote to: +1 for removing it. Thanks Ryan, Eelco - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
On 2/14/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/14/07, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few thoughts about in-line component declaration. 1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain templates. In fact, it's generally discouraged in Tapestry for those reasons. 2.) Providing a fundamentally different, optional way to declare components in Wicket seems more like an unnecessary increase in ways to do it rather than a useful increase in flexibility. 3) The tooling support issue should not be underestimated. The author of the Spindle plugin for Tapestry eventually gave up on updating it for Tapestry 4 precisely because there were so many ways in which components could be defined (in the template, in the XML spec file or in Java via annotations). While experienced Tapestry users can get along just fine without that plugin, it was a big selling point for new users. It's good to read this from a 'regular user', and from actual experience. I'm changing my vote to: +1 for removing it. Yes that really nails it and also express how I feel about it. (can we remove wicket:link as well now we're at it ;o) +1 remove it Frank - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
Didn't know about it before, so can't see a possible use case where it is necessary +1 remove. On 2/14/07, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/14/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 2/14/07, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few thoughts about in-line component declaration. 1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain templates. In fact, it's generally discouraged in Tapestry for those reasons. 2.) Providing a fundamentally different, optional way to declare components in Wicket seems more like an unnecessary increase in ways to do it rather than a useful increase in flexibility. 3) The tooling support issue should not be underestimated. The author of the Spindle plugin for Tapestry eventually gave up on updating it for Tapestry 4 precisely because there were so many ways in which components could be defined (in the template, in the XML spec file or in Java via annotations). While experienced Tapestry users can get along just fine without that plugin, it was a big selling point for new users. It's good to read this from a 'regular user', and from actual experience. I'm changing my vote to: +1 for removing it. Yes that really nails it and also express how I feel about it. (can we remove wicket:link as well now we're at it ;o) +1 remove it Frank - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
Stability and consistency is paramount in a good framework - delete. Jonathan Locke wrote: Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket%3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8967701 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
yep. yep. yep. could not have said it better. it takes real effort to restrain a maturing project from collapsing under its own weight. *less is more* Ryan Holmes wrote: As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few thoughts about in-line component declaration. 1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain templates. In fact, it's generally discouraged in Tapestry for those reasons. 2.) Providing a fundamentally different, optional way to declare components in Wicket seems more like an unnecessary increase in ways to do it rather than a useful increase in flexibility. 3) The tooling support issue should not be underestimated. The author of the Spindle plugin for Tapestry eventually gave up on updating it for Tapestry 4 precisely because there were so many ways in which components could be defined (in the template, in the XML spec file or in Java via annotations). While experienced Tapestry users can get along just fine without that plugin, it was a big selling point for new users. In short, I think you should hold a hard line against increased functionality in templates and only make exceptions for the most compelling and common use cases (e.g. wicket:message). -Ryan On Feb 13, 2007, at 8:47 AM, Jonathan Locke wrote: Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket% 3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8948008 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel? cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket%3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8968141 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
[X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature On 2/13/07, Jonathan Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket%3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8948008 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user -- Shawn Tumey Cofounder MT Web Productions LLC www.mtwebproduction.com - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
Hi, I vote either: [X] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future or [X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature with the amendment that the case below is supported in some other way Like Timo I am using it in a number of places to keep my XHTML valid. For example: table wicket:component wicket:id=persons trtdRow 1 of person data/td/tr trtdRow 2 of person data/td/tr /wicket:component /table I do not know how to write this in valid XHTML without wicket:component. Regards, Erik. Jonathan Locke wrote: Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/ - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
Jonathan Locke schrieb: [X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future and a +1 for wicket:pseudo / wicket:container as well ;) Greetings, Rüdiger - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
[Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket%3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8948008 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
[X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature Juergen On 2/13/07, Jonathan Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket%3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8948008 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
i don't care to much, but i don't plan on supporting it at this time (personally) But maybe some comes up with a GREAT usecase? so +0 I do agree a bit that we maybe should say, it is really supported if we keep it. johan On 2/13/07, Jonathan Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket%3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8948008 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
[ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -0. I don't care much about this feature, but it's not in my way either. It's been in the project for over 2 years and it hasn't been giving us or our users (as far as we know) any problems, and I'm not crazy about just throwing away stuff because there might in a distant future be some problem with it while chances are that the feature actually is helpful for every 1 out of 100 Wicket users. If someone on this list (the VOTE is on the user instead of the dev list) uses it, could you please explain your use case? Eelco - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
If wicket:component goes, please add wicket:pseudo http://www.nabble.com/%3Cwicket%3Apseudo%3E-tf2881952.html#a8052462 to be able to keep e.g. this kind of repeater markup valid when producing HTML tables with repeaters. wicket:component wicket:id=dataView wicket:component wicket:id=cols/wicket:component /wicket:component - Timo -- Timo Rantalaiho Reaktor Innovations OyURL: http://www.ri.fi/ - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
Re: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
I've havent used this feature.. And currently see no use for it. As long as one of the options are done, im happy:) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jonathan Locke Sent: 13. februar 2007 17:48 To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows: wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this may lead to misuse of the framework. Before heavily relying on this feature, you might want to contact the user list to discuss alternative strategies. It's unclear to me that anyone is using this. The utility is limited and unimportant. And for anyone creating tooling support for wicket, this will be a tripping point. I can't see any good reason to keep this feature as it is a way to instantiate a component in the markup and might server as the beginning of a bunch of requests to add component configuration or other code logic where we should only have nice clean markup. VOTE: [ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature [ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/VOTE-on-wicket%3Acomponent-tf3221780.html#a8948008 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done quickly with pre-integrated technology to make your job easier. Download IBM WebSphere Application Server v.1.0.1 based on Apache Geronimo http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnkkid=120709bid=263057dat=121642 ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user - Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.phpp=sourceforgeCID=DEVDEV ___ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
