hi bruno,
so we do start to convince you ;)
I hope people don't start thinking that "this damn newbie" comes and wants
to change a proven framework without knowing it really. But as owner of the
patch I am very interested in this discussion and probably even responsible
for it - or maybe eelco was, when he said "And hey, maybe some working code
convinces us :-)" (probably) without being prepared to see working code ;)
I don't think that whatever kind of declaration on the java side would help
to make things clearer. merging markup based on child/extend currently is
really trivial. therefore, the outcome is easy to predict for
developers/designers. this could also be beneficial for IDE support:
previewing the outcome would be an easy-to-implement feature for Wicket
Bench (including warnings for duplicate ids in the resulting markup).
-- stefan
Bruno Borges wrote:
>
> I give up. Looks like this enhancement is really receiving positive votes.
> :)
>
> So, let me just clarify my opinion, before giving a suggestion (yes, a
> suggestion!):
> I was (and I still am a little) against this improvement because of some
> reasons:
>
> 1) new tag: but if we are going to see a deprecation of old ones, fine by
> me
> 2) no declaration in the Java side: I don't like the idea of having markup
> containers like <wicket:abstract id="foo" /> not being declared in the
> WebPage.
> 3) existence of other ways to do this: using panels, fragments, whatever.
>
> Now, to change my position from "no way dude, this is no good!" to
> "well...
> if you can't beat them, join them" I'd like to suggest this:
>
> In my second reason, I point to something that is... the _core_ of wicket:
> binding Java objects (Components) to HTML tags. So, not having this
> binding,
> we could lose great features. Seeing from this point of view, my
> suggestion
> is to allow these new
> call-whatever-you-want-here-from-abstract-to-implement-to-default-to-etc
> tags only when they have been declared in Java:
>
> BasePage extends WebPage {
> BasePage() {
> /*
> * Abstract markups could only be set with <div> element
> * and their feature is that it can be overridden by specializations,
> like sub classes.
> */
> addAbstractMarkup("foo"); // internally sets setRenderBodyOnly(true)
> ALWAYS!! this won't let enclosing <div> being printed
>
> // this addAbstractMakup method would be a facilitator to
> // some AbstractWebMarkupContainer class, controlled by Wicket and
> maybe, not even public
> }
> }
>
> BasePage.html
> <html><body>
> <div wicket:id="foo">Some default value here maybe?</div>
> </body></html>
>
> SubPage extends BasePage {}
>
> SubPage.html
> <html><body>
> <div wicket:id="foo">Overrides BasePage's "foo"</div> <!-- this enclosing
> <div> should also not be printed by Wicket -->
> </body></html>
>
>
> m2c
>
> regards,
>
> On Nov 9, 2007 10:11 PM, Chris Colman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > Actually, Wicket already works like this. It does *NOT* require the
>> > <wicket:extend>, and if it's not present it just renders the contents
>> of
>> > the <wicket:child>. (Just tested this with beta4).
>>
>> Awesome!
>> [This behaviour must have changed since 1.2.6 because I tried removing
>> the <extend> tag in a derived page using this version and the whole of
>> the derived page got rendered - ie., it did not merge in any markup from
>> the base page. If later versions have fixed this already then that's
>> massively awesome indeed]
>>
>> >
>> > Furthermore, your patch works exactly the same as far for multilple
>> > child sections (as far as I can tell, or otherwise it should for
>> > backwards compatibility), and does precisely what both you and Chris
>> want.
>>
>> Awesome!
>>
>> So it all sounds like a very low risk improvement of the existing
>> functionality - cool!
>>
>> Sorry to all of those who've put up with such a long, sometimes noisy
>> thread but I think that's just part of the enthusiastic, collaborative
>> process that popular open source projects such as Wicket have become and
>> it's what continues to make them great and evolve to become even
>> greater.
>>
>> I present to you just one final tweak at the edges for your comment:
>>
>> The OO puritan in me would love to see <wicket:child> aliased to
>> <wicket:default> so that developers could use either <child> (deprecated
>> but still available for backwards compatibility) or <default> - it won't
>> break existing pages and lets new people use a more naturally fitting
>> and more accurate tag:
>>
>> Which would flow more naturally and be more easily understood by new
>> users reading the documentation?
>>
>> A) If you don't 'extend' a 'child' section in a derived page wicket uses
>> the child section provided in the base page.
>>
>> (Comment: Extend a child? We're not extending the child section - we're
>> replacing it!)
>>
>> B) If you don't 'extend' a 'default' section in a derived page wicket
>> uses the default section provided in the base page.
>>
>> (Comment: Extend? It is the page you are extended by overriding one or
>> more of its default sections. Again you aren't extending a default
>> section you are replacing it!)
>>
>> Or even - now I'm really pushing my luck asking to provide two aliases
>> ;)
>>
>> C) If you don't 'override' a 'default' section in a derived page wicket
>> uses the 'default' section provided in the base page.
>>
>> (Comment - arrhh beautiful - 100% accurate and natural)
>>
>> At university I remember a lecturer telling a story of an interview with
>> one of the creators of Unix. He was asked if he had any regrets over his
>> illustrious career and he said "Yes I do, I regret naming the 'create'
>> function 'creat' instead of 'create' just to save one byte!". How much
>> frustration does a bad name cause?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Bruno Borges
> blog.brunoborges.com.br
> +55 1185657739
>
> "The glory of great men should always be
> measured by the means they have used to
> acquire it."
> - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
>
>
-----
-------
Stefan Fußenegger
http://talk-on-tech.blogspot.com // looking for a nicer domain ;)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Attempted-summary-of-multiple-%3Cwicket%3Achild--%3E-thread-tf4767718.html#a13690139
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
