This isn't a big limitation, all you have to do is store the state in an object separate from the component hierarchy. Then have the components access that shared state. Keep MVC principles in mind: The model is your state, the component is the controller.
On Nov 9, 2010, at 10:41 PM, Dmitry Grigoriev wrote: > Hello all, > > I'm new to Wicket. Just wonder about subj (theoretical interest). On one > hand, stateful component model has no architectural limitations on its > own preventing me from reattaching component to different parent, just > like I can do with desktop applications or with any self-contained tree > structure. On another hand, Wicket's component tree structure is bound > to hard-coded markup, making such change-of-parent impossible.Is there > any opportunity to do this? (No matter how sophisticated.) > > The reason for my interest is that I'm collecting ideas for stateless > components support in my web framework. Stateless component hierarchy > would likely be immutable (hard-coded into application logic rather than > state) which looks like a significant limitation at first sight, > compared to "do-anything-you-want" desktop programming. But I don't yet > have much experience with web component frameworks and don't know is > this limitation really annoying or not. For now it seems to me that > Wicket has this limitation too but does not suffer a lot from it. Am I > right? > > Thanks. > > -- > Cheers, > dimgel > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
