WICKET-1355 autocomplete positioning
Hi, After 13 months I finally got around creating a proper patch for the wrong autocomplete dropdown positioning, (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1355). I added 2 patch files to the issue, one for 1.3.x, and one for 1.4.x/trunk. The patches are based on a version I created to patch wicket 1.3.6. The changes are very straight forward but I did not actually test the patches on 1.3.x, 1.4.x nor trunk. Please let me know if it works for you. Regards, Erik. -- Erik van Oosten http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/
Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics
im +1, unless Jeremy can tell why he believes it will hit a anti patter.. 2009/11/16 Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: i.e. ModelType.of() I am +1 for adding these methods. I'm +1 for the model-type methods, although there are so many models that are not final classes that it really won't save tons of code. Mainly in the *PropertyModel family. We can do the same for components, although the benefit is typically less, and it might even send our users down the wrong path thinking they can't use the 'new' keyword. TextFieldString field = TextField.of(someId, PropertyModel.of(foo, property)); I'm -1 on doing it for components. I think it will lead to an anti-pattern. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics
I know it is an minor thing, but the creation act that the new keyword exposes, the 'of' method don't has. IMO the simple fact of an method name does not contain an verb is an anti-pattern. On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 2:50 PM, nino martinez wael nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com wrote: im +1, unless Jeremy can tell why he believes it will hit a anti patter.. 2009/11/16 Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: i.e. ModelType.of() I am +1 for adding these methods. I'm +1 for the model-type methods, although there are so many models that are not final classes that it really won't save tons of code. Mainly in the *PropertyModel family. We can do the same for components, although the benefit is typically less, and it might even send our users down the wrong path thinking they can't use the 'new' keyword. TextFieldString field = TextField.of(someId, PropertyModel.of(foo, property)); I'm -1 on doing it for components. I think it will lead to an anti-pattern. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com -- Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics
Because we'll get questions to the list like: How can I create my own component since I have to instantiate them using Label.of(foo, PropertyModel.of(bar, foo))? How can I override that? Do I have to override the static method of? Sadly, I think that's what it will cause. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:50 AM, nino martinez wael nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com wrote: im +1, unless Jeremy can tell why he believes it will hit a anti patter.. 2009/11/16 Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: i.e. ModelType.of() I am +1 for adding these methods. I'm +1 for the model-type methods, although there are so many models that are not final classes that it really won't save tons of code. Mainly in the *PropertyModel family. We can do the same for components, although the benefit is typically less, and it might even send our users down the wrong path thinking they can't use the 'new' keyword. TextFieldString field = TextField.of(someId, PropertyModel.of(foo, property)); I'm -1 on doing it for components. I think it will lead to an anti-pattern. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
Re: Cutting down on the repetitive type identifiers for generics
not to mention that some components have 6 constructors, and that means having 6 of methods :| -igor On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:33 AM, Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com wrote: Because we'll get questions to the list like: How can I create my own component since I have to instantiate them using Label.of(foo, PropertyModel.of(bar, foo))? How can I override that? Do I have to override the static method of? Sadly, I think that's what it will cause. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:50 AM, nino martinez wael nino.martinez.w...@gmail.com wrote: im +1, unless Jeremy can tell why he believes it will hit a anti patter.. 2009/11/16 Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com On Sun, Nov 15, 2009 at 11:39 AM, Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: i.e. ModelType.of() I am +1 for adding these methods. I'm +1 for the model-type methods, although there are so many models that are not final classes that it really won't save tons of code. Mainly in the *PropertyModel family. We can do the same for components, although the benefit is typically less, and it might even send our users down the wrong path thinking they can't use the 'new' keyword. TextFieldString field = TextField.of(someId, PropertyModel.of(foo, property)); I'm -1 on doing it for components. I think it will lead to an anti-pattern. -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
