I think ajax fallback strategy is a good idea:
class AjaxFallbackEvent{
void handleSomething( target){
// user implementations test for target == null
}
}
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 4:38 AM, Per Newgro <per.new...@gmx.ch> wrote:
> Hi *,
>
> i would like to know if there "hidden" consequences if i exchange sharing
> by attribute through sharing by static determination.
> To couple my event-components with it's higher ranking components i use a
> listener based approach. Each parent adds a
> listener to the child can be involved if an event occurs.
>
> The problem is that i sometimes use ajax event components and sometimes
> not. Thus until now i have to provide two different
> event classes. The one for ajax usage contains an attribute with the
> current ajax request target. The event sources creates the
> event and provides the request target.
>
> But now if found AjaxRequestTarget.get. Javadoc says "Static method that
> returns current |AjaxRequestTarget| <
> http://wicket.apache.org/docs/1.4/org/apache/wicket/ajax/AjaxRequestTarget.html>
> or |null| of no |AjaxRequestTarget| <
> http://wicket.apache.org/docs/1.4/org/apache/wicket/ajax/AjaxRequestTarget.html>
> is available."
> So this exactly what i tried to achieve with the two event types.
>
> So my question is: Can i simplify my event objects by throwing the request
> target attribute away and use the AjaxRequestTarget.get method in my
> listener chain?
> Or why is this not a good idea?
>
> Thanks for clearing it to me.
> Cheers
> Per
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
>
--
Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
