https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-440
so anyone mind if i change getmodel() to null? i dont know if people depend
on this, but imho this is definetely a bug
I'm not familiar with how/ why that code is there, but I agree that it
looks like a bug and can be removed.
Eelco
the code for getstring(string) is currently:
public final String Component.getString(final String key)
{
return getString(key, getModel());
}
why is it involving the component's model in localization by default?? when
used in conjunction with a compound model it causes this bug:
then it would be more of a set() :)
-igor
On 3/31/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if it was me just add()
and should just replace if there is already one with that id if not then
add.
(and don't throw an error)
thats how 2.0 really worked. (and for example Swing also)
johan
if it was me just add()
and should just replace if there is already one with that id if not then
add.
(and don't throw an error)
thats how 2.0 really worked. (and for example Swing also)
johan
On 4/1/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
should actually be called addOrReplace() :)
-
should actually be called addOrReplace() :)
-igor
On 3/31/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm fine with either too.
-Matej
On 3/31/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's an idea too. It's an extra method (not so nice) but more pricise
(nice).
>
> I'm fine with ei
I'm fine with either too.
-Matej
On 3/31/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That's an idea too. It's an extra method (not so nice) but more pricise (nice).
I'm fine with either. What do others think?
Eelco
On 3/31/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> or add a replaceOr
That's an idea too. It's an extra method (not so nice) but more pricise (nice).
I'm fine with either. What do others think?
Eelco
On 3/31/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
or add a replaceOrAdd() method
-igor
On 3/31/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm backpor
or add a replaceOrAdd() method
-igor
On 3/31/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm backporting Wicket In Action's code currently, and stumbled upon
something I really liked to be able to do in 2.0 which I can't do in
the same way in 1.3.
Consider this:
void setContentPanel()
well, trunk convertees aren't using these interfaces too much.
sorry that this affects your chapter though. is there anyone
actually -1? if not, i'll go ahead and make these changes.
jon
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>
> +0
>
> The biggest problem I have in renaming is that we mess again wi
I'm backporting Wicket In Action's code currently, and stumbled upon
something I really liked to be able to do in 2.0 which I can't do in
the same way in 1.3.
Consider this:
void setContentPanel() {
if (inEditMode) {
new DiscountsEditList(this, "content");
} else {
new Discounts
+0
The biggest problem I have in renaming is that we mess again with
trunk convertees, *and* that I have to revise a chapter I regarded
finished.
This may not be as big a change, but adds to the total. However, the
names have changed for the better.
Martijn
On 3/30/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL P
I didn't want this vote killed. I take it that nobody is -1 on us making
these or similar changes (ala Eelco's note)?
Jonathan Locke wrote:
>
>
> Please vote +1/-1 all or per-item if you disagree with some but not
> others:
>
> - make getRootModel(IModel) protected - i don't care much abou
+1
/Gwyn
On 31/03/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
the subject says it all.
i kinda jumped the gun on this one and committed already by mistake :( my
appologies.
if the vote doesnt pass i will revert it.
-igor
--
Download Wicket 1.2.5 now! - http://wicketframework.org
13 matches
Mail list logo
