i was not deeply offended. just a bit annoyed, but i thought i'd jump in
and explain that i understood why this thread went a bit awry. i also
didn't expect any of this was intentional (on either side). in any case i
appreciate your apology and expect whichever of us may have snapped
at you
hi jonathan,
i do also think there were also some over-sensitive reactions to the
unfortunately worded start of this thread. mutual apologies would be even
better.
it definitly wasn't intended as a personal offence to any of the wicket team.
please take my apologies if you should have been
> I know transparent resolvers are currently a major issue and can't be
> really handled in a proper way due to the hierarchy concept. But if things
> can be fixed with a workaround (until a new transparent resolver model is
> established) and which has no impact on the overall functionality - why
i do also think there were also some over-sensitive reactions to the
unfortunately worded start of this thread. mutual apologies would be even
better.
Jonathan Locke wrote:
>
>
> yeah, i feel that the original statement is most readily interpreted as
> some form of bullying being levied agai
yeah, i feel that the original statement is most readily interpreted as some
form of bullying being levied against a team of volunteers. i don't think
that's too cool and the core team has every right to resist that sort of
pressure, particularly since their mission is to ensure minimal, clean
s
Making such general and potentially misleading comments on a public forum is
not always the easiest way to get a *specific* problem you are faced with
get addressed.
If you are lucky enough to spend time on the Wicket IRC, based on my
experience to date, the good people there would address such
Does it break api?
Or is it dangerous on some level? Can it break running code?
On 5/13/08, Gerolf Seitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > maybe gerolf didn't want to step into ground where others may have more
> > insight
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> maybe gerolf didn't want to step into ground where others may have more
> insight - that's the reason i filed this to jira.
>
correct.
also, because of what igor said:
> especially if it is markup parsing code which is a
too bad you did not maintain the jira issue properly. maybe now you
have a taste of what its like, but try it for hundreds of issues.
-igor
On Mon, May 12, 2008 at 10:26 AM, Jan Kriesten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi igor,
>
>
>
> > so i am a little confused as to why we are talking about t
hi igor,
so i am a little confused as to why we are talking about transparent
resolvers, and why gerolf did not apply that code himself...
i tried to verify whether or not is related to the transparent resolver - it
seems at last it's connected to them cause i couldn't produce a case where i
ive seen the issue, and your comment on it:
"Jan Kriesten - 23/Apr/08 01:21 AM Just realized: Maybe it doesn't has
to do anything with transparent resolvers at all but only with nested
repeaters and adding cells from the innermost."
so i am a little confused as to why we are talking about transpa
hi johan,
A whole story about bladiabla, but what is now the actual problem??
Why do you need transparant resolvers and why dont they work for you ?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1560
best regards, --- jan.
---
hi igor,
you want something done that we dont consider a priority and is not a
quickie for us to fix, provide a patch.
hello? if you'd taken a look at the jira, you'd seen that there _is_ a patch.
[1]
my issues are surely not high priority for you - you're not affected by them, so
i can und
A whole story about bladiabla, but what is now the actual problem??
Why do you need transparant resolvers and why dont they work for you ?
On 5/12/08, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> hi martijn,
>
> > I don't do that. I pose that it is very easy to say that feature X
> > must be impl
a simple fact of the matter here is that datatable was not designed to
show two rows per item, it is designed to show tabular data where each
item is represented by a single row and a set of columns. you are
trying to hack it to show two rows per item by using transparent
resolvers - which were not
hi martijn,
I don't do that. I pose that it is very easy to say that feature X
must be implemented when you don't have to do anything yourself in
supporting feature X.
i don't want a new feature. the point is wicket's implementation of transparent
resolvers has it's troubles making it hard t
On 5/12/08, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > The 'We wont support this' dogma isn't really proper argumentation.
> > Are you providing the 24x7 free support then?
> >
>
> that's actually not the point, is it? i'm trying to help out on the irc
> channel as well as good as i can. so you
hi martijn,
The 'We wont support this' dogma isn't really proper argumentation.
Are you providing the 24x7 free support then?
that's actually not the point, is it? i'm trying to help out on the irc channel
as well as good as i can. so you can't claim that all yourself.
just get back to se
On 5/12/08, Jan Kriesten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The 'We wont support this' dogma isn't really proper argumentation.
Are you providing the 24x7 free support then?
Martijn
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/d
Hi,
I'm getting a bit frustrated concerning wicket's encapsulation + extensibility,
especially when it comes to transparent resolvers.
There are a couple of nice features which are dependend on other Components.
Just extending/customizing them is nearly impossible when it comes to unthought
20 matches
Mail list logo
