so if i have:
final WebMarkupContainer c=new WebMarkupContainer(this, "c");
AjaxLink link=new AjaxLink(this, "l") {
onclick(AjaxRequestTarget t) {
t.add(c);
}
}
how do i make c output its id if we dont have setOutputMarkupId(true)
anymore? nowhere in this code there is a call to getMarkupId().
-Igor
On 10/2/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You mentioned you fear Component gets too big, I think the API slowly
> gets bloated and this an opportunity to get rid of 2 methods which are
> IMO not needed. The number of methods has grown over time, that is
> natural and nothing to worry about, but from time to time one should
> re-think implementation, pattern etc and apply lessons learned and if
> there is an opportunity to improve in 2.0, than we should do it.
>
> Juergen
>
> On 10/2/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not I understand this. If this worked as you suggest, then
> > component.markupId may not be transient, right? Otherwise you'd
have to
> > call getMarkupId not only in constructor, but every time the page is
> > deserialized.
> >
> > What would be the benefits of removing setOutputMarkupId and
> > getOutputMarkupId()?
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
> > > Actually we could get rid of Component.FLAG_OUTPUT_MARKUP_ID,
> > > Component.getOutputMarkupId() and Component.setOutputMarkupId() as
> > > well.
> > >
> > > If Component.getMarkupId() were implemented like
> > > public String getMarkupId()
> > > {
> > > String id = getMarkupAttributes().getString("id");
> > > if (id == null)
> > > {
> > > if (this.markupId != null)
> > > {
> > > return this.markupId;
> > > }
> > >
> > > id = getPageRelativePath();
> > > // first escape _ with __
> > > id = id.replace("_", "__");
> > > // then replace : with _
> > > id = id.replace(':', '_');
> > >
> > > // cache the value
> > > this.markupId = id;
> > > }
> > > return id;
> > > }
> > >
> > > than you only need to call getMarkupId() once to make sure the
id is
> > > properly set and rendered in the output.
> > > May getMarkupId() is not the right the name than, what about
> > > enableMarkupId() or requiresMarkupId(boolean)
> > >
> > > Juergen
> > >
> > > On 10/2/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >> The size of Component is not different than in 1.2, as far as I'm
> > >> aware nothing has changed so far except that Johan added
> > >> markupAttributes. Replacing markupAttribute with a transient
String
> > >> doesn't increase the size either. A transient would allow us cache
> the
> > >> id on first request (lazy) and re-compute in case of cluster /
> session
> > >> reload scenarios.
> > >>
> > >> Any yes, getMarkupAttributes() would be a read-only map.
> > >>
> > >> Juergen
> > >>
> > >> On 10/2/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > Yeah, but we don't need to store the id in component. It can be
> > >> computed
> > >> > when necessary. So even if we decide to cache it, we can
clean the
> > >> > cached value on detach.
> > >> >
> > >> > I know it's just one string, but I'm starting to be concerned
with
> the
> > >> > size of Component in 2.0.
> > >> >
> > >> > -Matej
> > >> >
> > >> > Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
> > >> > > See Component.java. It is required for JavaScripts
> > >> > >
> > >> > > /**
> > >> > > * Retrieves id by which this component is represented
within
> the
> > >> > > markup.
> > >> > > * <p>
> > >> > > * If the id attribute is present in the markup
attributes of
> > >> this
> > >> > > component
> > >> > > * it will be used, otherwise the page-relative path of
this
> > >> > > component will
> > >> > > * be used.
> > >> > > *
> > >> > > * @return the Markup id
> > >> > > */
> > >> > > public String getMarkupId()
> > >> > > {
> > >> > > String id = getMarkupAttributes().getString("id");
> > >> > > if (id == null)
> > >> > > {
> > >> > > id = getPageRelativePath();
> > >> > > // first escape _ with __
> > >> > > id = id.replace("_", "__");
> > >> > > // then replace : with _
> > >> > > id = id.replace(':', '_');
> > >> > > getMarkupAttributes().put("id", id);
> > >> > > }
> > >> > > return id;
> > >> > > }
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 10/2/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> > >> +1 to remove it. I never liked this copy on write value map.
> It's
> > >> > >> nothing I can't do in onComponentTag or using a behavior.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I think method to retrieve tag attributes from markup
would be
> > >> > >> sufficient.
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Btw. what would be the purpose of id variable?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> -Matej
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
> > >> > >> > Currently Component.java maintains a copy-on-write ValueMap
> for
> > >> markup
> > >> > >> > attributes which user might want to change, such as
> getMarkupId()
> > >> > >> > which adds the id="xxx" attribute to the tag.
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > However, the current implementation doesn't work
properly as
> the
> > >> > >> > Component owned attribute map keep the "old" value even
when
> the
> > >> > >> > markup has been re-loaded because of locale, style or
> variation
> > >> > >> > changes (see FormExample)
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > I wonder if this general use case of being able to
modify any
> tag
> > >> > >> > attribute in the constructor realy exists or if "id" is the
> > >> only case.
> > >> > >> > If the latter is true, than I would like to suggest to
remove
> > >> > >> > markupAttribute from Component as it requires some realy
> > >> hackish code
> > >> > >> > later on. I'd much rather add a "id" variable to the
component
> > >> for the
> > >> > >> > specific purpose of MarkupId()..
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > What do think?
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > Juergen
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
