On 9/27/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the problem is that that still not really does auto dirty.. > Because where does it end? just add/remove/visitble/enable? > The nice thing is we have already something like that: thats page versioning > with the undo/change map. Don't get too attached to it :) We should remove it in the next version, doesn't make much sense for 2nd level cache session store :)
-Matej > If we extend that a little bit then we could have something like > componentChanged(component) on a page (or somekind of listener) > and that component did trigger it self what ever did happen on it (getting a > child, settting the visibility, or setting an internal none wicket core > property) > > johan > > > > On 9/26/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 9/26/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > but this discussion is not just about getter/setters (i don't care about > > > those) > > > but also for add and remove.. then we are getting into some other stuff > > > > Yes. Getters/ setters are less tricky. Though I'm still not breaking > > in sweat when I imagine removing final on add and remove. > > > > Eelco > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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]
