I suppose it could, although I hadn't really thought about that part of it. I'm not sure that would be a wise idea, but we're not blocking it that I know of.
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 10:45 PM, Clint Checketts <checke...@gmail.com>wrote: > So in theory a behavior implementing this could add additional > components to the page? Or is the hierarchy frozen at this point? > > On Friday, February 18, 2011, Jeremy Thomerson > <jer...@wickettraining.com> wrote: > > What does everyone think about the following patch [1] to add two methods > to > > IBehavior? Obviously, it's not added directly to IBehavior since that > would > > be a breaking API change. It's added to a sub-interface that can > optionally > > be implemented by IBehaviors and is implemented by AbstractBehavior by > > default. > > > > It's for the purpose of allowing behaviors to contribute to things like > the > > visibility and enabled status of a component, which they can't currently > do > > in beforeRender because that happens during the render cycle, at which > time > > such changes are not allowed. > > > > [1] - http://mysticpaste.com/view/8231 > > > > -- > > Jeremy Thomerson > > http://wickettraining.com > > *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org* > > > -- Jeremy Thomerson http://wickettraining.com *Need a CMS for Wicket? Use Brix! http://brixcms.org*
