It is slightly ironic. Java, when we change default behaviour - we annotate methods with @Override.
Its not a dissimilar solution. I can appreciate both decisions. Same same but different. What's the "norm" coding wise - what's more convenient? - I think when the answer is "depends" - you can go either way. Antony Stubbs wrote: > > That's a pity - in my situation I would like the absence of the > wicket:extend tag to mean the child wants to be completely encapsulated by > it's parent. > It's useful because you can have your java class extend a parent without > having to modify the html, in my case the grand parent has the important > html that I want included in all children, but that means i have to put > the extend tag into all the children, instead of just one place - the > parent. > > > igor.vaynberg wrote: >> >> no it is not. not including wicket:extend means the child wants to >> completely override the markup of the parent. >> >> -igor >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Is-wicket%3Aextend-strictly-required-if-including-entire-html-child--tp20975395p21138307.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
