we might remove the change tracking, but the interface can stay. maybe it wont be called a versionmanager anymore...
-igor On 9/28/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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] > >
