Why? Your code requires the same amount of work - adding an attribute to the markup. To propose something that changes such a fundamental part of the framework, you need to come at it with a strong argument of WHY it should be changed.
-- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Antony Stubbs<[email protected]> wrote: > Assuming people didn't mind the hassle/potential problems, could we not drop > the requirement for specifying wicket id, and instead just match up > components in html / page class simply by their ordering? > > In the HTML we could just mark the component as a wicket component with > wicket:comp="t" ? > > Regards, > Antony Stubbs > > Talk to me about Wicket, Spring, Maven consulting, small scale outsourcing > to Australasia and India and Open Source development! > > Check out the Spring Modules fork at > http://wiki.github.com/astubbs/spring-modules ! We've just done the first > release of the project in over a year! > > Website: http://sharca.com > Blog: http://stubbisms.wordpress.com > Linked In: http://www.linkedin.com/in/antonystubbs > Podcast: http://www.illegalargument.com > >
