On 10/25/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
yes. but this breaks the component approach we have like martijn points out.
link is a container - it is that way also in html you dont say <link
href="#" text="this is a link"/>
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?
actually this has been the case from both "sides". we tell you we dont like
your suggestions, and you tell us you dont like ours. so lets be fair.
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
define cheap. adding a label component into a link is pretty cheap imho.
creating a subclass to do it for you is also pretty cheap. creating a
general panel that contains a link and a label, and has an abstract Link
newLink() method is also cheap.
(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).
i think this has a lot more to do with people not being used to working with
component frameworks then anything else.
we have a link component - it serves as a container for other components.
if you want to display something inside that component you have to add
another component to do that - eg a label.
i am for adding convinience subclasses for this. yes not as pretty but it is
how component oriented frameworks work.
-Igor
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>
>
