good question. re-adding dynamism seems like a fairly unusual use case (can you think of any good ones?) so i think the answer is probably no. it seems like if you have a component that dynamically does things on being re-added you could manage that case on your own.
igor.vaynberg wrote: > > so is it a firstattach if you remove a component and then readd it at a > later time? > > -igor > > > On 5/4/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Although I do still think we should generally discourage two-phase >> construction, it is occasionally truly necessary and it seems like it >> might >> be nice to have a method up in Component that uses those component bits >> to >> return whether the component has been attached already. This way, when >> two >> phase truly is needed, you don't need to implement a boolean for use in >> your >> onAttach(). Instead you would call isFirstAttach() which would check a >> single lighter-weight bit (versus 16 or even 32 bits per component in a >> subclass (depending on processor architecture and alignment >> considerations >> of the JVM)). I'm not neccessarily /gung-ho/ about this idea, but the >> core >> is in a unique position to add this to the root Component class and I >> personally would use it if it existed in those unusual cases where I need >> to >> do two-phase construction. I think other developers might like it as >> well. >> Thoughts? >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/isFirstAttach%28%29-convenience-method-tf3692483.html#a10324166 >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/isFirstAttach%28%29-convenience-method-tf3692483.html#a10327822 Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
