On Wed, 10 Nov 2010 07:31:28 -0500 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Carl-Eric Menzel > <cmen...@wicketbuch.de> wrote: > > > > So either there is a difference between the forms (different submit > > method maybe?), then this move would make a semantic/behavioral > > difference and needs to be done in code. > > > > As I said, the two forms edit different values on the same object. > Yes, this change would be a semantic/behavioral change, but you could > actually do it with just a change in the markup. It wouldn't require > a change to the code. This is assuming you queue the fields onto the > containing panel and not onto the contained forms, which is entirely > possible (and even likely). How many times have you accidentally > called add() when you meant to call rowItem.add() in a repeater? With > the queue() method, you wouldn't get an error message saying the > markup doesn't match. It would just figure it out and you'd be none > the wiser. That's exactly my point :-) This is not a good example to allow queuing, because there's no gain. Either there is an important difference between the two forms, then it doesn't make sense to queue *above* the forms, or there is no difference between the forms, then you can just have *one* form and not need queue at all. By "needs to be done in code" I mean that it is not something that should be doable in markup. Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
