That would throw an exception in my patch, with a reasonably clear
explanation (namely that you can't nest components in there because
the body is being replaced). It's something you can explain imo.
Ok, so what so far has been proposed is not liked. Fine. Instead of
telling us what we can't do, can we please for a change get a good
suggestion/ brainstorm/ positive feedback about what we can? As you
may have noticed, both Johan and me don't like the fact that we don't
have an easy and cheap way to set a label (I can live with the labels
personally, but having to answer this question regularly is a good
indication to me there is room for improvement).
Eelco
On 10/26/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A link is a *****markup container*****. it can and will contain markup
and components. What would be the semantic of:
<a href="#" wicket:id="link">Some text <span wicket:id="label"></span>
more text</a>
new Label(new Link(this, "link").setLabel("my text"), "label", "My label text");
???
I *really* don't see the benefit, but I do see a lot of trouble coming our way.
Martijn
On 10/26/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem is then that you have to do it for ALL the links we have
> For example ResourceLink is also a pretty nice one. new
> ResourceLink("mypdf", mypdfresource).setLabel("My Pdf"));
>
> Just one simple method (we could do only a getter) is so much simpler and
> then i have it for all the different kind of links
> And there are a lot of them.
>
> I am not talking about servoy how users use servoy. But how we had to build
> it.
> And i am already complaining about this from day 1. And pretty much all the
> first time users all have the same problem
> Because it is just not logical. The text of the link (if dynamic) is a
> property of that link. Thats how i (and i guess many others) just see it.
>
> i am -1 for a special link class, then we will keep busy adding more and
> more because users also want it for that or this kind.
>
> johan
>
>
> On 10/26/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > i really want a new class for this in extensions.
> >
> > you cant compare this to a formcomponent.label - that serves a completely
> > different purpose and doesnt display it for you anywhere even if set.
> >
> > is it really that hard to build a new SimpleLink and
> > SimpleBookmarkablePageLink in your code or in extensions?
> >
> > -Igor
> >
> >
> > On 10/25/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Thats why i dont like a new class, but just a new method on link.
> > > Just like FormComponent.getLabel() (that is a method i never have yet
> > > used... and the Link.getLabel() i would use all over the place)
> > >
> > >
> > > On 10/25/06, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > +1 on keeping core as clean as possible. Even though conveinience
> > > > classes is a good thing (most of the time) they tend to clutter the
> > > > API.
> > > >
> > > > I like having them in extensions and I personally don't mind if
> > > > (having really checked) extensions is larger than core (LOC,
> > > > #classes).
> > > >
> > > > Frank
> > > >
> > > > On 10/25/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > whatever you guys end up doing this should most definetely NOT be in
> > > > > BookmarkablePgeLink! leave that g e n e r i c.
> > > > >
> > > > > add a convinience subclass into extensions if its really bugging you
> > > > that
> > > > > much.
> > > > >
> > > > > as martijn pointed out 99% of usecases there is either a text/a
> > > > > wicket:message/or a collection of components not a label in there.
> > > > >
> > > > > core should be a framework not a bunch of convinience classes.
> > > > >
> > > > > yes we have those requiredtextfield, etc. nothing we can do about it
> > > > now. we
> > > > > can remove them in 2.0, i would be +1 for that - move them into
> > > > extensions.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 10/25/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > as i said we could doe
> > > > > >
> > > > > > add(new BookmarkablePageLink("Link1", Page1.class
> > > > ).setLabel("String"));
> > > > > >
> > > > > > but that means directly mem usage (and empty reference)
> > > > > > (or should i reuse meta data for that, we already have that
> > > reference
> > > > > > anyway
> > > > > > :))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > johan
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 10/25/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But as you have proposed it, Korbinians example would look like:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > add(new BookmarkablePageLink("Link1", Page1.class) {
> > > > > > > protected String getLabel() {
> > > > > > > return "Blabla";
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > });
> > > > > > > add(new BookmarkablePageLink("Link2", Page2.class) {
> > > > > > > protected String getLabel() {
> > > > > > > return "Blabladsafa";
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > });
> > > > > > > add(new BookmarkablePageLink("Link3", Page3.class) {
> > > > > > > protected String getLabel() {
> > > > > > > return "afafafaf";
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > });
> > > > > > > add(new BookmarkablePageLink("Link4", Page4.class) {
> > > > > > > protected String getLabel() {
> > > > > > > return "awer342";
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > });
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which is in my view cluttered beyond recognition. Again, it is
> > > > trivial
> > > > > > > to add to your own application using the technique you prefer:
> > > > trading
> > > > > > > session size versus lazy evaluation.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think
> > > > > > > - this bloats our api with very small benefit
> > > > > > > - makes working with Wicket unnecessary hard
> > > > > > > - forces you to subclass
> > > > > > > - adds magic to link handling
> > > > > > > - doesn't entice users to create their own custom components
> > when
> > > > > > > they need to scratch their itch
> > > > > > > - it is not necessary as I haven't felt the need for this
> > feature
> > > in
> > > > > > > over 200+ pages created with thousands of links.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thus it receives my -1. However voting is on majority.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Martijn
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10/25/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 10/25/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I hate that I have to call setRequired on form components,
> > yet
> > > I
> > > > > > don't
> > > > > > > > > introduce RequirecDropDownChoice, and vote to remove
> > > > > > RequiredTextField
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > probably same for: Component.setResponsePage() vs.
> > > > > > > > > RequestCycle.get().setResponsePage()
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It is bloating our api, and doesn't give anything extra you
> > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > already achieve by creating your own, custom component that
> > > does
> > > > > > > > > exactly as you wish. And Wicket is advocating creating
> > custom
> > > > > > > > > components.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > BTW How often do you *really* have to add the label to the
> > > link?
> > > > > > Only
> > > > > > > > > once in a menu panel? How often do you just have some text
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > markup?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What is the benefit of doing so if you can just add a
> > > > > > <wicket:message>
> > > > > > > > > in the markup?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > We use links on and around all kinds of stuff, including:
> > > <tr>,
> > > > > > <td>,
> > > > > > > > > <div> <span> <img> etc.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Laziness is a bad motivator for expanding an api as has been
> > > > said
> > > > > > time
> > > > > > > > > and time again on these mailinglists
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Sure. My problem with the whole thing is that is has been
> > > applied
> > > > very
> > > > > > > > selectively. There have been a zillion ajax methods and
> > > > convenience
> > > > > > > > classes in the last few months for instance, which weren't
> > > > extensively
> > > > > > > > discussed, and thus no-one cried about it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Is this a really big thing? To Johan, me and some users it is.
> > > > Does it
> > > > > > > > have a big impact on the API? No, not like I proposed it, as
> > it
> > > is
> > > > > > > > something you specifically have to look for.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eelco
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket
> > > > ">Vote</a>
> > > > > > > for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket
> > > > > > > ">Wicket</a>
> > > > > > > at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best
> > Stuff
> > > > in
> > > > > > > the World!</a>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
--
<a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket";>Vote</a>
for <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/stuff/wicket";>Wicket</a>
at the <a href="http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/";>Best Stuff in
the World!</a>
