+1 Wicket Cookbook On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 6:04 PM, taha siddiqi <tawushaf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 > "26 Wicket Tricks" or "Wicket Cookbook" or "Wicket Recipes" > > (Whenever I am trying something new I always try a cookbook, It later > on acts as a reference too) > > taha > > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 3:38 AM, Matej Knopp<matej.kn...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 11:55 PM, Vladimir K<koval...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > >> Matej Knopp-2 wrote: > >>> > >>> Modal Window is an ajax component. Submitting it with regular submit > >>> is not supported and it never was. > >>> > >> > >> But I would like to have AjaxFallbackModalWindow that survives page > refresh. > >> Why not author my own if the aims are different? Probably requirements > we > >> have are far from being accepted as common. > > Of course you can. There's nothing wrong with that. > >> > >> > >> > >>> Again, modal window doesn't support regular submits (by design) so if > >>> you want to do file upload you'll have to use a hidden iframe or some > >>> other approach like that. > >>> > >> > >> IMO, Iframe is not an approach it is a work around the limitation (made > by > >> design) :) > > Yes. But from the beginning Modal Window was designed as Ajax Component. > >> > >> > >> > >>> I just looked at jquery dialog example. The dialog is declared in > >>> markup but it is then reparented as top level DOM element. Same thing > >>> wicket modalwindow does. > >>> > >> > >> What is especial in my case is that the page height is limited by the > window > >> height and contains a srollable div within. Taking into account that the > >> browsers we support works well with fixed positioning and assuming that > the > >> following excerpt works: > >> > >> > >> > >>> Fixed positioning is a special case of absolute positioning. For fixed > >>> elements, the containing block is always taken to be the viewport of > the > >>> browser window. > > This is true. Unfortunately it doesn't apply to IE6 which doesn't > > support position:fixed. Modal Window was written couple of years ago > > when IE6 position was quite strong, however even now we can't afford > > to ignore it. Unfortunately. > >>> > >> > >> It seems to be pretty doable. But it needs investigation. I haven't > tried > >> yet. > > Position:fixed will work in your case if you can afford to ignore IE6. > > But it's not something we can do in wicket extensions. > >> > >> > >> > >>>>Anyway it is possible to do what the modal.js is doing by Wicket means > and > >>>>don't have a component tree mismatch with DOM. > >>> > >>> Is it really? Mind sharing with me how? > >>> > >> > >> In case if the position:fixed does not help I would subclass a Form and > make > >> it a container of ModalWindows. Then by placing the > >> modal-window-container-form at the body level I would acquire a new > >> ModalWindow from the container. Does it make sense? > >> > > So the ModalWindow would have to be added to the container (which I > > assume would have to be added to the page itself)? That's rather > > limiting. > > > > -Matej > >> -- > >> View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Twenty-Six-Wicket-Tricks-tp21214357p24708596.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 > >> > >> > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > -- Fernando Wermus. www.linkedin.com/in/fernandowermus
