hi eelco, Assume the tag wouldn't be renamed. Then it would only be a new and optional (!) attribute for the child/extend tags. So isn't it unnecessary to explicitly turn on/off a feature that you could implicitly turn on as soon as this attribute is used?
The naming - is abstract/implement better than child/extend - is another topic I really didn't want to argue about. This is just an idea. I know that supporting it as wicket core feature (docs, mailing list, code, ...) is a totally different question. regards, stefan 100th reply - is it a Good Thing (tm) ;) Eelco Hillenius wrote: > > On Nov 7, 2007 11:19 AM, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I can see how <wicket:abstract> and <wicket:implements> tags could be >> a nice enhancement to the current <wicket:extend> and <wicket:child> >> tags. Do you have a working, or mostly working, patch? > > What I think we should do with this is make it an option. It would be > turned off by default, requiring users to an extra one or two lines of > configuration to turn this on (we've done this before), and let it > prove itself. Sounds to me like everyone would be happy. > > WDYT? > > Eelco > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- ------- Stefan Fußenegger http://talk-on-tech.blogspot.com // looking for a nicer domain ;) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-%3Cwicket%3Achild--%3E-tags-on-a-single-base-page--tf4738673.html#a13643104 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
