On 3/19/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But why can't it be "per component" setting? Why can't we have a flag for this?
It can, but having to set it per component will require you to do it everywhere. This might make the change less interesting, and less consistent. If you make it an application setting, the whole application willl work in the same way, ajax or non-ajax. This is then something where designers and JavaScript builders can work with. Martijn
On 3/19/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is not a bug, but the current way how markup rendering works. It > has been this way since 0.1. It is widely published behavior and > widely used. Introducing this will create bugs in existing > applications, that are hard to track. > > And please, don't give me JavaScript lessons, thank you very much, I > find that very condescending. I understand you find this solution very > elegant and perfect for *YOUR* usecase. As a framework > builder/maintainer I have to weigh existing investments as well. I > don't take breaking existing applications lightly. > > *IF* we were to adopt this, it should not be the default (because it > breaks existing applications), and it should be an application setting > to turn it on, or a page setting (which inherits the application > setting?). I think that making it a WMC specific setting will mitigate > the advantages of this approach. > > As for the migration guides, these are usually properly ignored. If > you can fail fast, then we should do that. Typically we use changes in > API and @deprecation for that. This change doesn't have any of those > safeguards. > > Martijn > > > On 3/19/07, Frédéric Bertin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Martijn Dashorst wrote: > > > Currently everybody assumes (correctly) that the element is completely > > > removed (Ajax and non-Ajax), i.e. not present in the final markup. > > > This means that scripts that iterate through the dom, or check for the > > > document.getElementById() == null will fail if we implement this. > > then you'll have to check for document.getElementById().style.display == > > "none" > > it's a bit longer to write, but it is semantically better. Indeed it > > checks a component *visibility*, and not its existence. > > > > When I do setVisible(false), I expect setVisible(true) to work if called > > later, in ajax or not. Currently, it doesn't work in Ajax. Don't you > > think it is a real bug? > > If yes, I don't think breaking such scripts should be used as a pretext > > not to fix bugs ;-) > > > > > > Fred > > > > > -- > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! > http://wicketframework.org >
-- Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now! http://wicketframework.org
