Thies Edeling-2 wrote: > > That's exactly what wicket:enclosure does; otherwise you'd have to wrap > the > row in a WebMarkupContainer to keep a reference in the DOM. >
I know the benefits of wicket:enclosure. What I need, however is a placeholder, which is what wicket:enclosure doesn't provide (instead it removes it's entire body along with self when the specified child is not visible). This makes it impossible to show a component after the page has been rendered without it. The whole problem is even explicily stated on the page that Pills linked to: "Note: Changing the visibility of a child component in Ajax callback method will not affect the entire enclosure but just the child component itself. This is because only the child component is added to the AjaxRequestTarget." - though as far as I know even this is misleading since you can't show even a child of something that is not visible. Feel free to prove me wrong on this, but to shut down the subject of wicket:enclosure regarding my case, I am rendering more than one row using a repeater (repeater's body is the tr) and I want to be able to AJAXly switch the visibility of some of those on and off. This excludes wicket:enclosure from possible solutions. If the problem I'm facing isn't clearing enough let me know, I will try to rephrase. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-placeholder-for-%3Ctr%3E-component-causing-invalid-markup-tp21663544p21665137.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
