I also liked the behaviour - it made the code shorter, as I did not have
to mirror the component tree in both then and else branches.
I guess it is not a big deal, except for the testing headaches - this
breaks the code at runtime :(
I now, i know - I should have test cases covering all branches in the
form :(
On 12/13/2009 08:14 AM, Douglas Ferguson wrote:
I did find the behavior handy, but it is easy to work around.
D/
On Dec 12, 2009, at 11:12 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
i think you guys misunderstand.
i believe what we are talking about here is the requirement for
presence of components *other* then the component specified by
enclosure's child attribute.
essentially if i do this:
add(new webmarkupcontainer("container").setvisible(false));
and have this in my markup:
<div wicket:id="container"><div wicket:id="foo"/></div>
wicket will not throw an error even though i never added the "foo"
component to my component hierarchy because as soon as it determins
that the container div is not visible it will skip over until the
closing tag.
the enclosures, however, as of 1.4.4 *will* throw an error for *any*
missing child declared inside enclosure's markup *even though* the
enclosure has been determined as hidden.
hope this clears it up somewhat
-igor
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
