if we do that then we also need to check out where we can have a callback before the page is getting to be used (so before the listener call) it is hackable now..
It still would like the thing i described in the jira issue but i guess thats not really possible :( On 3/8/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
see wicket.valid package and then there is also the onattach/detach refactor that will need to go into 1.x at some point. -igor On 3/8/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > i could do that, maybe i can finish it up today or tomorrow when i have to > wait 6 hours on the airport.... > > Then also lets take the new validators because i think that is the one > that > is left > So Igor: whats the place to start what is changed? > Then we have it all. > > johan > > > On 3/8/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > How about this: Johan, you have all that code ready on your machine > > right? How about committing that for wicket and wicket-examples in a > > temp branch, so that people can investigate how much pain it would > > actually be? If you did that, and users took a look at it, we can pick > > up this thread again. > > > > Eelco > > > > > > On 3/8/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > So for now I am -1 on this issue, until we have collectively and > > > > officially decided what we are going to do with trunk. And for the > > > > record, this is a veto, pending the results of an official vote on > the > > > > constructor change. After that has been decided, we need to recast > > > > this vote. > > > > > > It all comes together at some point though. Whether my vote will go > > > for ditching 2.0 depends largely on how well our upgrade path for > > > existing 2.0 users will be. It has to be complete - all features > > > exception for the constructor change - within a few weeks, not months. > > > I think that if we want to, we can provide such an upgrade path, but > > > we'll have to go through some pain for a few weeks, yes. That would be > > > the price of being stupid enough to start that 2.0 branch that early > > > anyway. > > > > > > Eelco > > > > > >
