Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
We're choosing an item from a list and then using ajax to populate a
view of the item, together with a listview of purchasable details.
For any given item there may or may not be images. Either managing
the relevant components in a page-level collection or using a visitor
to find them works. The key to the solution is:
1. they are all in a panel
2. that panel must be an ajax target
3. the logic to determine whether they are visible must be in the
onbeforereneder method of that panel
Thanks all.
- Scott
On 9/8/07, Ryan Holmes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Pita wrote:
>
> > You can also make the components to hide implement some listener (or
> > just marker) interface X and then do a visitChildren traversal from
> > page.onBeforeRender as follows:
> >
> > visitChildren(X.class, new IVisitor() {
> > public Object component(Component component) {
> > comp.setVisible(your visibility logic here);
> > }
> > });
> >
> > This is less centralized that keeping a list at the top level, if you
> > care about this.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Carlos
> >
> >
>
> Damn. I just now recommended the same thing. Sorry, didn't notice
> your post.
>
> This approach definitely seems cleaner than managing a list of
> component references -- I wonder if it works for Scott...
>
> -Ryan
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Scott Swank
reformed mathematician
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
On Sep 7, 2007, at 8:52 PM, Carlos Pita wrote:
You can also make the components to hide implement some listener (or
just marker) interface X and then do a visitChildren traversal from
page.onBeforeRender as follows:
visitChildren(X.class, new IVisitor() {
public Object component(Component component) {
comp.setVisible(your visibility logic here);
}
});
This is less centralized that keeping a list at the top level, if you
care about this.
Regards,
Carlos
Damn. I just now recommended the same thing. Sorry, didn't notice
your post.
This approach definitely seems cleaner than managing a list of
component references -- I wonder if it works for Scott...
-Ryan
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
How about using an IVisitor to call setVisible() on the image
components? That way, you wouldn't need to keep an explicit reference
to those image components. You could trigger the visitor in
onBeforeRender() and you could use a marker interface to identify the
image components whose visibility should be changed (called
'IOptionalImage' in the example below). Something like:
public class OptionalImageVisitor implements IVisitor {
private boolean visible;
public OptionalImageVisitor(boolean visible) {
this.visible = visible;
}
public Object component(Component component) {
component.setVisible(this.visible);
}
}
public class MyPage {
public onBeforeRender() {
boolean imagesVisible = ...logic to determine whether images are
visible
visitChildren(IOptionalImage.class, new OptionalImageVisitor
(imagesVisible);
}
}
-Ryan
On Sep 7, 2007, at 1:41 PM, Scott Swank wrote:
Matej,
My issue isn't that the div is rendered, but rather that I have to add
it to the html file in the first place. I think that I could
implement this as a Behavior, but for this problem I just went ahead
and added div tags around the relevant components.
Thanks again,
Scott
On 9/7/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Can't you just call webmarkupcontainer.setRenderBodyOnly(true) ?
-Matej
On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered
across the page rather than in one place that could simply be
enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight.
Cheers,
Scott
On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure...
it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of
those
components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure
-igor
On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to
_not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the
html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer --
I just
want to avoid having to change:
to
div>
The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a
product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we
don't.
My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a
container
that knows how to determine isVisible().
Scott
On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it
badly
-igor
On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though.
Scott
On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on
Enclosure.java
-igor
On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a
consistent
manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I
derive
from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in
WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my
markup?
Thank you,
Scott
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott Swank
reformed mathematician
--
---
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott Swank
reformed mathematician
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Scott Swank
reformed mathematician
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
You can also make the components to hide implement some listener (or
just marker) interface X and then do a visitChildren traversal from
page.onBeforeRender as follows:
visitChildren(X.class, new IVisitor() {
public Object component(Component component) {
comp.setVisible(your visibility logic here);
}
});
This is less centralized that keeping a list at the top level, if you
care about this.
Regards,
Carlos
On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martijn,
>
> That certainly accomplishes what I want. Thank you. It was pushing
> the logic to onBeforeRender() that I was missing.
>
> On 9/7/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What you want is a bag of components that are separate from the
> > component hierarchy, afaiui?
> >
> > Why not keep a list of components that need to be made invisible, and
> > add them to that list. call setvisible(false) on that list of
> > components in onbeforerender. Remove them from that list when you want
> > them visible again...
> >
> > public class MyPage {
> > List hidden = new ArrayList();
> >
> > public onBeforeRender() {
> > for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(true);
> >
> > some arcane logic to mark them components...
> > hidden.add(some component);
> >
> > for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(false);
> >
> > }
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered
> > > across the page rather than in one place that could simply be
> > > enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Scott
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure...
> > > >
> > > > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those
> > > > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure
> > > >
> > > > -igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to
> > > > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the
> > > > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just
> > > > > want to avoid having to change:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > to
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a
> > > > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't.
> > > > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container
> > > > > that knows how to determine isVisible().
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Scott
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on
> > > > > Enclosure.java
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -igor
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a
> > > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I
> > > > > > > > > derive
> > > > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in
> > > > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my
> > > > > markup?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > > > Scott
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Scott Swank
> > > > > reformed mathematician
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Scott Swank
> > > reformed mathematician
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> > Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
> >
> > --
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
Martijn,
That certainly accomplishes what I want. Thank you. It was pushing
the logic to onBeforeRender() that I was missing.
On 9/7/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you want is a bag of components that are separate from the
> component hierarchy, afaiui?
>
> Why not keep a list of components that need to be made invisible, and
> add them to that list. call setvisible(false) on that list of
> components in onbeforerender. Remove them from that list when you want
> them visible again...
>
> public class MyPage {
> List hidden = new ArrayList();
>
> public onBeforeRender() {
> for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(true);
>
> some arcane logic to mark them components...
> hidden.add(some component);
>
> for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(false);
>
> }
>
> Martijn
>
> On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered
> > across the page rather than in one place that could simply be
> > enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Scott
> >
> >
> > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure...
> > >
> > > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those
> > > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure
> > >
> > > -igor
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to
> > > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the
> > > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just
> > > > want to avoid having to change:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > to
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a
> > > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't.
> > > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container
> > > > that knows how to determine isVisible().
> > > >
> > > > Scott
> > > >
> > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly
> > > > >
> > > > > -igor
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Scott
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on
> > > > Enclosure.java
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -igor
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a
> > > > consistent
> > > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I
> > > > > > > > derive
> > > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in
> > > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my
> > > > markup?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > > Scott
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Scott Swank
> > > > reformed mathematician
> > > >
> > > > -
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Scott Swank
> > reformed mathematician
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
> Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Scott Swank
reformed mathematician
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
Matej, My issue isn't that the div is rendered, but rather that I have to add it to the html file in the first place. I think that I could implement this as a Behavior, but for this problem I just went ahead and added div tags around the relevant components. Thanks again, Scott On 9/7/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Can't you just call webmarkupcontainer.setRenderBodyOnly(true) ? > > -Matej > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered > > across the page rather than in one place that could simply be > > enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight. > > > > Cheers, > > Scott > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure... > > > > > > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those > > > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to > > > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the > > > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just > > > > want to avoid having to change: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a > > > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't. > > > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container > > > > that knows how to determine isVisible(). > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly > > > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. > > > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on > > > > Enclosure.java > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a > > > > consistent > > > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I > > > > > > > > derive > > > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my > > > > markup? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Scott Swank > > > > reformed mathematician > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Scott Swank > > reformed mathematician > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Scott Swank reformed mathematician - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
What you want is a bag of components that are separate from the
component hierarchy, afaiui?
Why not keep a list of components that need to be made invisible, and
add them to that list. call setvisible(false) on that list of
components in onbeforerender. Remove them from that list when you want
them visible again...
public class MyPage {
List hidden = new ArrayList();
public onBeforeRender() {
for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(true);
some arcane logic to mark them components...
hidden.add(some component);
for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(false);
}
Martijn
On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered
> across the page rather than in one place that could simply be
> enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
>
> On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure...
> >
> > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those
> > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to
> > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the
> > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just
> > > want to avoid having to change:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a
> > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't.
> > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container
> > > that knows how to determine isVisible().
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly
> > > >
> > > > -igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on
> > > Enclosure.java
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a
> > > consistent
> > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive
> > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in
> > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my
> > > markup?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > -
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Scott Swank
> > > reformed mathematician
> > >
> > > -
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Scott Swank
> reformed mathematician
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
Can't you just call webmarkupcontainer.setRenderBodyOnly(true) ? -Matej On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered > across the page rather than in one place that could simply be > enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight. > > Cheers, > Scott > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure... > > > > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those > > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure > > > > -igor > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to > > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the > > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just > > > want to avoid having to change: > > > > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a > > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't. > > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container > > > that knows how to determine isVisible(). > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. > > > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on > > > Enclosure.java > > > > > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a > > > consistent > > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive > > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my > > > markup? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > > > - > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Scott Swank > > > reformed mathematician > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Scott Swank > reformed mathematician > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered across the page rather than in one place that could simply be enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight. Cheers, Scott On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure... > > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure > > -igor > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just > > want to avoid having to change: > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't. > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container > > that knows how to determine isVisible(). > > > > Scott > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. > > > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on > > Enclosure.java > > > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a > > consistent > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my > > markup? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > > > - > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Scott Swank > > reformed mathematician > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- Scott Swank reformed mathematician - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure... it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure -igor On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just > want to avoid having to change: > > > > to > > > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't. > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container > that knows how to determine isVisible(). > > Scott > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly > > > > -igor > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. > > > > > > Scott > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on > Enclosure.java > > > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a > consistent > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my > markup? > > > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > > Scott > > > > > > - > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Scott Swank > reformed mathematician > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just want to avoid having to change: to The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't. My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container that knows how to determine isVisible(). Scott On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly > > -igor > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. > > > > Scott > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on Enclosure.java > > > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a consistent > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my markup? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Scott > > > > - > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- Scott Swank reformed mathematician - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly -igor On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. > > Scott > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on Enclosure.java > > > > -igor > > > > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a consistent > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my markup? > > > > > > Thank you, > > > Scott > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though. Scott On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on Enclosure.java > > -igor > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a consistent > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my markup? > > > > Thank you, > > Scott - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: WebMarkupContainer without template markup
no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on Enclosure.java -igor On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a consistent > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching tag to my markup? > > Thank you, > Scott > > -- > Scott Swank > reformed mathematician > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
