Matej, My issue isn't that the div is rendered, but rather that I have to add it to the html file in the first place. I think that I could implement this as a Behavior, but for this problem I just went ahead and added div tags around the relevant components.
Thanks again, Scott On 9/7/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can't you just call webmarkupcontainer.setRenderBodyOnly(true) ? > > -Matej > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered > > across the page rather than in one place that could simply be > > enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight. > > > > Cheers, > > Scott > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure... > > > > > > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those > > > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to > > > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the > > > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just > > > > want to avoid having to change: > > > > > > > > <span wicket:id="foo"></span> > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > <div wicket:id="fooContainer"><span wicket:id="foo"></span></div> > > > > > > > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a > > > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't. > > > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container > > > > that knows how to determine isVisible(). > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly > > > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on > > > > Enclosure.java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a > > > > consistent > > > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I > > > > > > > > derive > > > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching <div> tag to my > > > > markup? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Scott Swank > > > > reformed mathematician > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Scott Swank > > reformed mathematician > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Scott Swank reformed mathematician --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
