this will make it hugely inconsistent with how isenabled() isenabledallowed() works.
-igor On 11/2/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > By the way, Component.RENDER doesn't have to be renamed for me either. > Maybe add one extra method to component: > > isVisibleAllowed() that checks both properties: isRenderedAllowed and > isVisible() > and that method is again called for every component in the hierachy in > isVisibleInHiearchy() > > i think thats more clear. > > johan > > > > On 11/2/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > true that "if something is not rendered then it is not visible". The > > > problem is that the you're confusing the name of the "visible" property > > > with what it means, namely: > > > > > > isVisible() means "is visible IF the component is allowed to render" > > > > > > But the problem is that that line above is not true... > > isVisible() only checks the visible property, it doesn't check if it is > > also allowed to render. > > > > we have such a method that does both thats isVisibleInHierarchy() > > that checks everything. isVisible()/isRenderedAllowed() and all the > > parents if they are both that. > > > > what is true in wicket is that: > > Component not rendered then isVisible() or isRenderedAllowed() returned > > false; > > > > (ofcourse you have 1 exception to this rule and the component doesn't has > > markup at all, but thats another beast) > > > > johan > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
