Hi Jonathan,
What is the result of the vote then? Or was it just a poll?
Seems like many users expressed the wish to remove that feature.
Is there a JIRA issue for that?
Thanks,
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
wicket:container is available for 2.x.
Juergen
On 2/14/07, Rüdiger Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jonathan Locke schrieb:
[X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature
[ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki
as fully supported and
As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few
thoughts about in-line component declaration.
1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully
supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain
templates. In fact, it's generally discouraged in
On 2/14/07, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few
thoughts about in-line component declaration.
1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully
supported, it can lead to complex and difficult to maintain
On 2/14/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/07, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few
thoughts about in-line component declaration.
1.) Even in a framework like Tapestry where the idiom is fully
Didn't know about it before, so can't see a possible use case where it is
necessary
+1 remove.
On 2/14/07, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/14/07, Ryan Holmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a long-time Tapestry user (but very
Stability and consistency is paramount in a good framework - delete.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows:
wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class
attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is
yep. yep. yep. could not have said it better. it takes real effort
to restrain a maturing project from collapsing under its own weight.
*less is more*
Ryan Holmes wrote:
As a long-time Tapestry user (but very new Wicket user), I have a few
thoughts about in-line component
[X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature
On 2/13/07, Jonathan Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows:
wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class
attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a
Hi,
I vote either:
[X] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki
as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future
or
[X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature
with the amendment that the case below is supported in some other way
Jonathan Locke schrieb:
[X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature
[ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki
as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future
and a +1 for wicket:pseudo / wicket:container as well ;)
Greetings,
Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows:
wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class
attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind
of an unsupported feature, as most of the core developers believe that this
may lead to
[X] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature
Juergen
On 2/13/07, Jonathan Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows:
wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class
attribute. Though this has been in
i don't care to much, but i don't plan on supporting it at this time
(personally)
But maybe some comes up with a GREAT usecase?
so +0
I do agree a bit that we maybe should say, it is really supported if we keep
it.
johan
On 2/13/07, Jonathan Locke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Wiki
[ ] Delete this unimportant and generally unsupported feature
[ ] Keep wicket:component, but define its limits, document it on the wiki
as fully supported and commit to supporting it in the future
-0.
I don't care much about this feature, but it's not in my way either.
It's been in the
If wicket:component goes, please add wicket:pseudo
http://www.nabble.com/%3Cwicket%3Apseudo%3E-tf2881952.html#a8052462
to be able to keep e.g. this kind of repeater markup valid
when producing HTML tables with repeaters.
wicket:component wicket:id=dataView
wicket:component
: [Wicket-user] VOTE on wicket:component
Our Wiki describes the wicket:component tag as follows:
wicket:component - Creates a Wicket component on the fly. Needs a class
attribute. Though this has been in wicket for a long time, it is still kind
of an unsupported feature, as most of the core
17 matches
Mail list logo
