If you don't have licence matter you can download the old 1.2.x datepicker
available here

http://wicketstuff.org/confluence/display/STUFFWIKI/wicket-contrib-datepicker

and refactor to make it use the Wicket 1.3.x core classes.


That's all .

/ Paolo


On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Charlie Dobbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> This is causing me some issues as well.  I have a page which contains
> 21 datepickers...  These add 59KB of JavaScript to the head and I now
> believe might be the cause of a ~three second browser pause I'm seeing
> when the entering the page.
>
> The 1.2.6 datepicker component kept its JavaScript in external
> libraries, so they were only loaded once, and made a call to
> Calendar.setup to do the work for each component.  Obviously, they're
> both different technologies behind the scenes, so the same approach
> might not work.  Anyone got any suggestions?
>
> Charlie.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:42 AM, Ned Collyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >  Hi Igor,
> >
> >  The picker works fine - its the implementation I'm concerned about.
> >
> >  If you have 2 instances, then all the javascript exists twice.  All the
> >  translations exist twice.
> >
> >  The demo does not show 2 date pickers and you can clearly see the
> dependance
> >  on "initdateTextField2" being pasted into the middle of the script
> area.
> >
> >  eg, say you need to specify a date range - or multiple date ranges for
> >  something like a search input, or you have multiple panels with date
> >  pickers.
> >
> >  Is this purely to satisfy the requirement of the example? -ie, not
> suitable
> >  for anything more than "date of birth" checking and 1 instance per
> page.
> >
> >
> >
> >  igor.vaynberg wrote:
> >  >
> >  > it seems to be working just fine here
> >  >
> >  > http://wicketstuff.org/wicket13/dates/
> >  >
> >  >
> >  > -igor
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>

Reply via email to