yuk!
that doesn't help at all
why ohh why would you trade this:
new Link(this,"link").add(new Label())
for
new Link(this,"link").add(new BodyModifier())
thats doesn't solve anything.
Last thing i just say about this. Why do we constantly get this question??
Because people see link text as the link text. I had exactly that same
reaction from day 1
I know jan blok also had that. I find it always so ugly that you have to add
a span inside a link and then add a label to the link component
So i am +1 for adding getLabel() (and maybe setLabel()) to Link
i am really -1 for introducing a completely seperate hierachy. Then just do
nothing and let it be like it is now and let users implement there own when
needed.
I still don't get it why you guys are so against it it doesn't get in your
way at all. It is just a very nice and handy thing to have for all the
people that think
like me that the text of a link is the property of that link.
And no you also have a lot of text that is dynamic and not i18n like
Listviews with data where an entry is directly a link. (that is used all
over the place in my solutions)
johan
On 10/26/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I was already thinking along the line Igor mentioned:
I'm thinking of a BodyModifier. A BodyModifier is added to a
component, and alters the body in a similar fashion as an attribute
modifier:
<a href="#" wicket:id="link">dummy</a>
new Link(this, "link").add(new IBodyModifier() {
public CharSequence onComponentBody(CharSequence body) {
return "<em> + body + "</em>";
}
});
or
new Link(this, "link").add(new IBodyModifier() {
public CharSequence onComponentBody(CharSequence body) {
return "My new contents";
}
});
That would be more scalable in terms of api then slapping getLabel()
at random to components where the getLabel() has different semantics
depending on the component.
However I think this one will be misused by beginners of the framework
to things they could do in a more component oriented way.
Martijn
On 10/26/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 10/26/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > This is so crap
>
>
> those are my thoughts exactly on adding that property :)
>
>
> People don't see links as containers.. they could be but for 99% of the
> > cases they are not used like this
>
>
> well, they are in html and i use them as containers often. i have plenty
of
> links that have an icon and text, etc. im sure im not the only one out
> there.
>
> furthermore you just wont convince me that even if the link is just a
label
> setting the text for it pragmatically is a widespread enough usecase to
> warrant this. the text is either in markup or in wicket:message tag most
of
> the time.
>
>
> > Yes we let them do that because we say that you have to make a label
for
> > that.
> > But again it is completely component oriented what i say... I see the
> > label
> > as a property of the link!!
>
> How much more component oriented can that be????? It is and will always
be
> > in my eyes the display value of a link.
>
>
> only if the link is not a container
>
> what you are trying to make link be here is sometimes a container and
> sometimes not - its totally wrong and confusing. why not push this
feature
> down into the webmarkupcontainer then? you can even get rid of Label
then!
>
>
> > I dislike a complete separate stack of links for that just label. That
> > just
> > sucks big time.
>
>
> yes, it is not elegant - but is a lesser of evils.
>
> And adding an extra label for every link is maybe cheap but not that
cheap
> > as you want it to be
> > i have seen sessions dumps of pages with 700KB now and if you see what
> > components take the most then it is almost
> > always labels. Because those are used all over the place.
>
>
> and because if you are not careful - they hold the actual text string.
>
> Maybe i just should change this:
> >
> > public abstract class AbstractLink<T> extends WebMarkupContainer<T>
> >
> > into this:
> >
> > public abstract class AbstractLink<T> extends WebComponent<T>
>
>
> if you make this change then feel free to add the getLabel() property :)
>
> another idea might be to add oncomponenttagbody to ibehavior and let you
add
> a labelbehavior to the link. dont know how much cheaper that is then the
> label.
>
> at the end if we dont see eye to eye on this then lets put it to the
vote.
>
> -Igor
>
>
>
> :)
> >
> > johan
> >
> >
> > On 10/26/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/25/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 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.
> > > >
> > > > Sometimes little things make a big difference. I only have to get
back
> > > > to SimpleAttributeModifier vs AttributeModifier to 'prove' that,
as
> > > > that only saved what, the creation of a model.
> > >
> > >
> > > and i will take the fall for that one. in retrospect i shouldve put
it
> > in
> > > extensions. maybe i should fix that mistake in 2.0?
> > >
> > > but SimpleAM is a bit different story.
> > >
> > > another thing that bugged me about AttributeModifier was that
boolean in
> > > the
> > > constructor which i could never remember which way it worked - in
2.0 we
> > > can
> > > make it an enum. so SimpleAM was a bit more then just convinience -
it
> > > really was a simpler version of the full attributemodifier. it also
> > lacks
> > > a
> > > lot of the methods that the full version has.
> > >
> > > its like dataview - you can argue that is a convinience because you
can
> > do
> > > the same with a listview - but its just not the case.
> > >
> > > > i am for adding convinience subclasses for this. yes not as pretty
but
> > > it
> > > > is
> > > > > how component oriented frameworks work.
> > > >
> > > > Yeah, that's probably the best option then.
> > >
> > >
> > > this would be my vote.
> > >
> > > -Igor
> > >
> > >
> > > 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>
