now here is an idea we can try. something like wicket:placeholder.
-igor On 3/7/07, Frédéric Bertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, from a user point of view, the fact that you can't make a component visible using Ajax by simply doing: component.setVisible(true) target.addComponent(component) is perceived as a bug. And I can't believe you guys won't find something smarter for Wicket than using a surrounding container ;) For example, instead of using an HTML tag, what about using a Wicket specific one, like <wicket:component id="myInvisibleComponent"/> ? Fred Martijn Dashorst wrote: > I don't agree. style="display:none" is not the same as not rendering > it at all > > The text and markup is still available, it could have stuff that is > sensitive in it. setVisible (false) should always remove the whole > markup for the component from the stream. > > Ajax should work the same as normal requests. Otherwise what is the > fricking point of having a AjaxFallbackLink? > > Yes it is a drag to add containers around your stuff that you want to > hide. but it makes it explicit and predictable. > > Martijn > > On 3/7/07, Vincent Demay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think it will be easier to speek about this in the mailing list ;) . >> >> I agree with the last comment : "then why not simply adding the >> style="display:none" attribute to the component tag, instead of creating >> an additional <span> ?" but without its innnerHtml, only the >> componentTag. I think it should work in all case. >> >> -- >> Vincent Demay >> http://wwww.demay-fr.net/blog/ >> >
