me too.
i haven't read this entire thread yet, but at the risk of being redundant, maybe repeaters could explicitly check that the id is not specified and throw an exception if it is? we might need to provide a hook for this... not sure what the best way is. something as simple as a tagging interface checked during id generation would work (implements IAutomaticMarkupId), although i don't love the use of tagging. Matej Knopp-2 wrote: > > I believe the current behavior is intentional. Igor seemed to feel > quite strongly about not using markup id specified in template. The > reason is that it's not unique and it behaves wrongly in repeaters or > when you put the component to page twice. > > I'd actually prefer wicket to preserve specified attribute because it > can be handy in cauple of cases. But that's just my opinion. > > -Matej > > On 6/24/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 6/24/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > I think everyone ran into it at one time... I know I did. Last time I >> > think Igor threw some issues with repeaters into the mix, and then the >> > discussion went dead. >> >> For all I know, it worked in 2.0. I remember testing it specifically. >> I'm just surprised it doesn't work the same in 1.3. Did we forget to >> backport it maybe? The name of the method is a pretty clear indication >> what we had in mind with it, right? >> >> FYI, I tested all of the examples of wicket-examples, including the >> ajax and repeater tests, and they worked fine. The unit test that >> fails is RadioGroupTest#testFormProcessing but that is because the >> page tested isn't backed up by the proper markup (it uses >> org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.MockPage which doesn't have any of the >> components that are added in that test). So the test is faulty here. >> >> Eelco >> > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/getMarkupId-doesn%27t-return-the-id-from-the-markup-tp11277169p15882346.html Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
