On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:52:30 -0800, Jonathan Locke wrote:
>
>boy, the more i think about this the more i think that add() just has to
>be super smart and
>very involved with the markup... when a call to add() returns, it seems
>that any intervening
>wicket:components should already be parents of the added child... this
>is most intuitive to
>the user and the least likely to cause problems.
>
>in other words, some logic in add() for a container needs to
>getAssociatedMarkup()
>and lazily create some kind of simple "nesting model" of how
>wicket:components nest in
>that container. that model is then used to automatically insert or use
>any required
>wicket:component parents. the whole thing then becomes totally
>transparent to the user.
That would be ideal. Do you forsee any problems with this
approach? Again, I strongly suggest we move add() out of the
constructor and into a separate method like initChildren() or
something. We shouldn't be configuring the hierarchy until absolutely
needed.
Gili
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
