On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 15:20 -0800, Jonathan Locke wrote: > > almost all of the root form classes and validation are also not specific to > html. while it would be possible to cut and paste this, i wonder if we > shouldn't extract an abstraction here too.
+1 > > > Jonathan Locke wrote: > > > > i'm currently tasked in my job with supporting WML and another internal > > markup language in wicket. i think we would like to open source the WML > > effort and i'd like to do this in trunk for the next version of wicket if > > everyone is okay with that. I remember you have mentioned several months ago about open sourcing some components from Thoof. Maybe kittens captcha ?! > this work is pretty cool because it will be > > an opportunity to iron out any wrinkles we've got that would stand in the > > way of adding full support for a markup language other than HTML. > > > > in looking at the inheritance hierarchy, it strikes me that there are a > > number of subclasses of WebMarkupContainer which are pretty (or entirely) > > markup-language neutral. this makes me wonder if they shouldn't subclass > > MarkupContainer and have MarkupContainer.getMarkupType() return > > getPage().getMarkupType() (or something along those lines). in > > particular, it seems like these classes are not markup-language dependent: > > > > Panel, Border, Fragment, AbstractRepeater (and ListView, Loop and > > RepeatingView), BorderBodyContainer, Enclosure, HeaderPartContainer, > > ListItem, LoopItem > > > > also, Label is a subclass of WebComponent and doesn't seem to be > > markup-language specific either, so it could subclass Component and > > Component.getMarkupType() would return getPage().getMarkupType() as well. > > > > it would seem that this is not a huge breaking change, but i'm not > > precisely sure what all would be affected. > > > > thoughts? > > > > > > >
