Makes sense, but I don't like it. Next thing to introduce is some fancy
XML binding! I like Wicket because it keeps things simple, and you don't
need to browse through tons of configuration files to know what you're
doing.
I also like stuff like Jan sent us:
class Row implements IModel
{
private Map columndata;
public Object getObject(String id)
{
return columndata.get(id);
}
public void setObject(String id,Object obj)
{
columndata.put(id,obj)
}
So I am kind of +0.5 for changing IModel to the structure Jan proposed; I
especially like the efficiency gain, and the fact that property model (or
whatever its name would be in future) would look more natural. But anything
that introduces any more 'magic' will actually make it fuzzier.
I'd like to know what Chris and Juergen think about this as well.
Regards,
Eelco
Jonathan Locke wrote:
uh, oh yeah, i guess obviously this:
public String propertyExpression()
{
return
((PropertyMappings)mappings.get(getPage().getClass())).expressionFor(this);
}
needs to do the null check. and not this:
public String expressionFor(Component component)
{
String expression =
properties.get(component.getClassRelativePath());
return expression != null ? expression : component.getName();
}
;-)
so it would be:
public String propertyExpression()
{
OgnlBindings bindings = bindings.get(getPage().getClass());
return bindings == null ? getName() : bindings.expressionFor(this);
}
make sense? ;-)
Jonathan Locke wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide
Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users.
Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now.
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
