On 1/19/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > just realised my compromise wont work because i dont think there is a way to > tell the difference between a default constructor that is implemented and > the one provided by java. > > what we are doing right now is the opposite. we always try the pageparams > constructor, and if there isnt one then we always resort to calling the > default. which is kind of strange anyways because if you have parameters but > no constructor the params get ignored silently. which is ok i guess. >
Than it is ignored by purpose. I think that is ok. IMO we can leave it as is. Juergen ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid3432&bid#0486&dat1642 _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
