but IModel implementations can have Imodels inside too And the LDM doesn't play wel with detach unfortunately as it keeps an attached boolean that prevents the detach from entering the nested IModel
Martijn On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 6:43 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you still have ondetach()...but for convinience we can automatically > detach any imodel fields, i actually wanted to do this for a while... > > -igor > > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> and if i store it in metadata ;) >> >> >> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 5:16 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> >>> why even have an interface? just detach all imodel fields via reflection! >>> >>> -igor >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 3:37 AM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>> > On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Eelco Hillenius >>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> it all depends, on how and what you're developing. >>> >> >>> >> Yeah. I actually use less and less models in the regular way nowadays. >>> >> I use plenty of panels (the app I work on hardly uses separate pages) >>> >> that nest other panels in them (typically detail views or dialogs) >>> >> that reuse models of the parent. But indeed YMMV. >>> >> >>> >> Personally, I think the whole generics business exposes that the >>> >> one-one relation between components and models is flawed. Without >>> >> generics this isn't much of a problem, just the odd unused member and >>> >> constructor, but as generics aren't as 'optional' it is all very in >>> >> your face suddenly. >>> >> >>> >> I think on the longer term (post 1.4) we should re-think how models >>> >> work in Wicket. See if we can find an elegant way to make this more >>> >> flexible (I'm not in favor of the id based thing someone posted >>> >> earlier btw) without breaking the whole world. >>> >> >>> > >>> > We discussed this on ##wicket yesterday. I asked why we have models >>> > on all components and someone pointed out that the main reason was >>> > about the detach stuff I believe. But, couldn't that be solved by >>> > having some components that implement something like IModelDriven (or >>> > IModelBacked or whatever) and the detach logic could apply to only >>> > those components? Also, someone has pointed out that when they create >>> > their own components, they sometimes (such as in Palette) have >>> > multiple "models" that they deal with. Allowing components to name >>> > their models what they want would be nice, too. >>> > >>> >> FWIW, I'm still on the fence when it comes to whether we should go for >>> >> a full or partial (models only) implementation of generics, though I'm >>> >> leaning towards partial. >>> >> >>> >> 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] >>> > >>> > >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] > > -- Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.3 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
