i am against it because i feel it perverts the api and the nature of
component orientation.
if you think of it as a desktop link component then yeah text makes sense
there as a property because you cannot put anything else into a link -
because most desktop link components dont let you - but in wicket you can.
just start a vote because obviously there is no middle ground here.
-Igor
On 10/26/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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>
>
