+1
I find it odd that you can't do that.
On 10/27/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
As we can't seem to find middle ground, how about removing final from
onComponentTagBody?
Btw, I'm not crazy about any onComponentTag/onComponentTagBody being
final. Any fool understands you should should only overwrite that when
you know what you're doing, and sometimes (now?) there actually can be
good usecases.
Eelco
On 10/26/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The LinkText would look like that (an label component added auto, what is
> the name of that label component then?)
>
> But this doesn't work (having a seperate class), because now i want the same
> thing but i want to use the AjaxFallBackLink? what then?
> any kind of link we have now in core or extentions i could use the label
> part.
>
> johan
>
>
> On 10/26/06, Petr Sakar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> > I do not follow current development on 2.0, but it seems to me, that
> > link with label is only 'specific' case of 'generic' link, so extending
> > Link class and introducing LinkText class (or whatever name you choose)
> > should make the trick.
> >
> > Something like:
> >
> > public class LinkText extends Link {
> > final Label label;
> > public LinkText(String name) {
> > add(label = new Label());
> > }
> >
> > and then you can have your methods to access label ...
> >
> > Probably you would have to change the check if markup for label exists as
> > well, but as it is usually text only, it should not be big deal ...
> >
> > Or did I miss something ?
> >
> > saki
> >
> >
> >
> > > 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>
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
--
<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>
