you should be able to toString() any MarkupElement or non-ComponentTag subclass since that's an Object method. this is the only assumption you should make and should be sufficient for any purpose you might use a non-ComponentTag subclass for. i agree that this detail should be in the documentation.
On Thu, 6 Jan 2005, Gili wrote: > Jon, > > I was simply saying: > > Hey, I know I've got a MarkupElement here and it's not of type > ComponentTag . . . then you guys come along and say I can assume it is > of type RawMarkup (even though I can't check whether that is true) and > I'm sitting there wondering "how safe is this assumption really? what > happens if new types are added in the future?". > > If you believe it is *always* safe to make this assumption, > feel free to note this in the Javadoc somewhere and explain why that > is. For example: "It is safe to assume that any unknown MarkupElement > is of type RawMarkup because this means the code will ignore unknown > markup tags in the future. We actually want to do this in order to > ensure that old code will continue running when the framework is > extended to add new types".... Does that make sense? It just isn't > explicit really and I feel hesistant to make such an assumption in my > code. I'd feel better if it was clarified in the documentation. > > Gili > > On Thu, 6 Jan 2005 10:54:32 -0800 (PST), Jonathan Locke wrote: > > >cowwoc says: > > > >"The point is, if ComponentTag is public, RawMarkup should be > >too, so we can check which of the two children we get back > >from MarkupStream.get()" > > > >in bug 1092016. > > > >if you're out there cowwoc, can you explain what it is that you want to do > >with a RawMarkup tag if you detect it? we're trying to keep details of > >markup rendering out of the hands of users as much as possible. i think > >it is more likely that you have a problem you're trying to solve that > >would cause us to create a new rendering feature for you. but if you have > >a good reason for needing a RawMarkup tag, we might open this up. > > > >in any case, it ought to be possible to solve your problem. please let us > >know WHY you want to check the markup tag type like this. what problem > >are you trying to solve? > > > >thanks, > > > > jon > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------- > >The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues > >Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. > >It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt > >_______________________________________________ > >Wicket-develop mailing list > >[email protected] > >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues > Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. > It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-develop mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop > ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
