ive been discussing with johan offline, and here is what we came up with
there is still a big onattach refactor to do in 2.0. big meaning it will
affect a lot of users.
the contract for onattach/ondetach was that these methods are called before
the framework executes any method on the
yeah, you got it
attach means you attach any resources you might need. a better way to think
about it is the opposite of detach() in the model - everyone is familiar
with that one. i honestly do not see many use cases for onattach, most of
the time i use the lazy loading pattern so all i really
well it was fixed, and then i broke it again with the attach/detach refactor
i did :) now its fixed again.
we are still thinking about how best to deal with attach/detach
-igor
On 1/3/07, Martin Benda [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have just updated wicket/trunk from SVN (rev. 492084), run
the code is ready, but this being our first official apache release we have
some hoops to jump through. we have to make sure all the red-tape stuff is
done.
look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-180 for more details
-igor
On 1/3/07, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, unfortunately it is now a requirement due to various reasons.
what you should do is factor out whatever behavior out of onattach() into a
separate method, and then override that method in the subclass, that way you
dont need to override onattach() in the subclass, and even if you do you
add(HeaderContributor.forJavaScript(...));
-igor
On 1/3/07, craigdd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the best way to dynamically add a reference to a javascript file
in
the header of a page. In most cases you can use the JavaScriptReference
but
in my case the page might or might now add
2.0 is really broken. there are 106 unit test failures
juergen you probably forgot to commit a whole bunch of changes
-igor
On 1/2/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
fixed
juergen take a second look in case its not how it is supposed to be
-igor
On 1/2/07, Ross Gardler [EMAIL
i have just migrated wicket 2.0 from commons-logging to slf4j as was
previously discussed and agreed upon.
people using 2.0 need to add the following to their project's pom or
equivalent:
if you are using commons-logging:
dependency
groupIdorg.slf4j/groupId
go for it in 1.3 and 2.0
-igor
On 12/26/06, Juergen Donnerstag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingram created the following RFE:
I occasionally encounter a problem, for example, a template like:
tr
span wicket:id=groupAB
tdfield A/td
tdfield B/td
you are not adding refreshing view directly to the ajax target are you?
-igor
On 12/26/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for moving the repeater package to core.
However, I'm currently developing an application that updates the
UI using Ajax only, and I noticed
ok my bad.
looks like i checked something i shouldnt have as part of a refactor i was
working on last friday. matej will be checking in the rest of it
momentarily.
-igor
On 12/26/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Igor Vaynberg:
you are not adding refreshing view
wicket:tag ?
-igor
On 12/26/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wicket:div ?
johan
On 12/26/06, Juergen Donnerstag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ingram created the following RFE:
I occasionally encounter a problem, for example, a template like:
tr
try it with firebug uninstalled, it has caused me to have weird errors in
wicket-ajax.js before
-igor
On 12/22/06, Paolo Di Tommaso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to display an alert message when the user is performing an
ajax
operation but the connection is down.
The
thought we were moving cattr to wicket-stuff for 1.3/2.0? martijn could you
do that please?
-igor
On 12/20/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: frankbille
Date: Wed Dec 20 13:15:52 2006
New Revision: 489201
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=489201
Log:
problem here is
4) DataView is detached (internalDetach() is called at the end of
renderComponent()) and the cached RowCount is cleared
we shouldnt detach components right away after rendering them in ajax, but
wait until all ajax components have been rendered and then detach.
problem is
add(new Label(title, hello));
-igor
On 12/18/06, Paolo Di Tommaso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How to change an page header title?
Is it possible to make something like this:
wicket:head
title wicket:id=title my dinamic title /title
/wicket:head
But how to map then in code?
Or does exist
we need to see some code that replicates the usecase. wicket-quickstart
preferably.
-igor
On 12/15/06, Izaias Miguel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When I use FormComponentFeedbackBorder to use Ajax validation of form
components, I have some strange behaviors. First, the model isn't built
right,
On 12/14/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Author: ivaynberg
Date: Wed Dec 13 17:16:54 2006
New Revision: 486921
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=revrev=486921
Log:
WICKET-150: javadoc hook to wicket.markup.repeater
Modified:
http://www.mail-archive.com/wicket-develop%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg07082.html
-igor
On 12/13/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I can't seem to find relevant information about the detailed
reasons why to switch from a Servlet to a Filter besides the wiki
saying
i dont mind getting rid of them, they are a headache for me cause i use the
same workspace unlike ya'll :)
-igor
On 12/13/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have discussed this previously, the consensus was to commit
.classpath to cvs/svn and use project dependencies *ALWAYS*.
code will get sloppier fast.
Eelco
On 12/13/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i dont mind getting rid of them, they are a headache for me cause i use
the
same workspace unlike ya'll :)
-igor
On 12/13/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have discussed this previously
it doesnt
http://joda-time.sourceforge.net/
DateTime now=new DateTime();
DateTime nowPST=now.withZone(DateTimeZone.forID(PST));
DateTime nowEST=now.withZone(DateTimeZone.forID(EST));
System.out.println(nowPST.hourOfDay());
System.out.println(nowEST.hourOfDay());
-igor
On 12/13/06, Eelco
so you have 3 workspaces now?
-igor
On 12/13/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am against removing those files
If i had to checkout something and it doesn't work right out of the box
compile time
then i would already look for something else.
Especially that we use maven. We have
poor bastard
On 12/13/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have...
Martijn
On 12/13/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
so you have 3 workspaces now?
-igor
On 12/13/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i am against removing those files
If i had
this is all heading down a very very slippery slope and i dont like it one
bit. right now we have clear definition of what is what and how things work.
the only usecase that keeps coming up is for simple wrappers around existing
form components when they are used to dynamically generate forms.
On 12/13/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But in
future versions, it would be great if you could achieve the same
through mixing in rather than extending.
my point was that it is the formcomponent that should be mixed into the
panel and absolutely not the other way around
-igor
if it doesnt work 100% of the time then imho it shouldnt be in the core, i
think it should go into a separate module or extensions.
-igor
On 12/11/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, done.
The issue is still open. I'm still not convinced we should ship the
reloading filter
i think that was legacy behavior because onError() did not always exist.
feel free to fix it, in 1.3 we can make the break
-igor
On 12/11/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We now have this:
protected final void onEvent(final AjaxRequestTarget target)
{
final
+1
On 12/10/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
See http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-159
We don't currently focus on the popped up window, which has the effect
that if the window with the same name already is open and in the back
ground, it will stay in the back ground.
sure, go ahead and swap them. the one in wicket-stuff is nowhere near usable
though - it still needs a lot of work.
-igor
On 12/9/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, I think the idea was to swap them. But Igor and the others who
worked on that project may be able to say more
/voting.html#Veto
On 12/7/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
wtf is a 0.5 vote? can i vote 0.7 for and 0.3 against? my brain cant do
floating point math!
/me kicks martijn in the ball
-igor
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A lot of people have asked
from these methods,
I won't block it. That doesn't mean that I agree with the proposal,
nor that I don't care. I care enough to say that I don't agree, but
don't want to stop the show.
Martijn
On 12/7/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
that has got to be one of the most idiotic things i
that ajax works.
-igor
On 12/7/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Igor Vaynberg:
our replace methods should migrate the id imho. please add an rfe.
Back to this. Your change to the generation of markup ids in
branch 1.x does not work when a Page is restored from the session
?
-igor
On 12/7/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Igor Vaynberg:
define reliably. markupid should never be used by anything
other then wicket - we have never guaranteed its stability. did
you ever create the rfe to have the id migrated when components
are replaced
i think we can release an alpha1 of 2.0
i dont know about 1.3
we need to create a roadmap for 1.3 on the wiki and mark what features are
already in and what are not
-igor
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
Woudn't it be great if we could release our current
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/8/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i think we can release an alpha1 of 2.0
Fair enough, though the DatePicker needs to be moved out of extensions.
we havent already? was that only in 1.x?
we need to create a roadmap
[ ] Leave ListView in core unchanged and let the repeaters forever
in the extensions
[X] Move at least a bunch of repeaters from wicket-extensions into
core (and deprecate ListView) == skip that
-igor
see the new thread. it is pretty specific.
-igor
On 12/4/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12/4/06, Sylvain Wallez [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
I don't like to deprecate listview. It has enough good usecases to
keep it and promote its use. And
+1
general case this is not recoverable imho.
-igor
On 12/1/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+0 I can see both sides of the equation... I like the current api
because it makes explicit that the input conversion can (will) fail.
Not sure if just declaring the checked exception
:)
On 11/29/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what makes a formcomponent a formcomponent?
If we can extract this info really easy in a interface then that is fine
by
me.
But should that interface impl always be a wicket component? Because then
component also must be an interface?
we need to keep the servlet in some shape or form for the osgi folks. the
osgi spec doesnt support filters. so a servlet that is a think wrapper
around our filter should do the trick.
-igor
On 11/27/06, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be ok with removing it. Maybe Johan
our replace methods should migrate the id imho. please add an rfe.
-igor
On 11/26/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I notice after upgrading from wicket 1.2 to current wicket-1.x
that replaceWith() combined with an AjaxRequestTarget does not
work anymore. I
resource loading is already pluggable.
see IStringResourceLoader along with its implementations and
IResourceSettings.addStringResourceLoader(IStringResourceLoader)
-igor
On 11/20/06, Gavin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
It seems like we have xml resource bundles in 2 now (thanks to Eelco
no, they both do exactly what they were designed to do. sounds like you need
to create a subclass of repeatingview for your usecase.
-igor
On 11/20/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Igor Vaynberg:
think of RepeatingView as an unmanaged ListView. you are in full
control
just found this color picker: http://www.colorjack.com/plugin/
it is licenesed under creative commons, is that ASL2 compatible?
-igor
think of RepeatingView as an unmanaged ListView. you are in full control
over how the children are managed.
-igor
On 11/19/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Eelco Hillenius:
unless there is another Wicket component that fits the job?
Wicket-exention's repeater package
HELO
ACK
On 11/19/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
test
On 11/19/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Igor Vaynberg:
CheckGroup.convert(); CheckGroup.getConvertedValue();
getConvertedInput() you mean?
yes
[...]
Providing access to the checked checkboxes directly allows to
do checkbox.getParent() to get the ListItem
i think that was done so you can override properties of deeper components.
suppose i create a custom component, and this component uses key my.key in
its markup and provides a default value in its .properties file.
so how do you override that? right now its simple, just redefine my.key in
the
i guess the question is:
what will we get by using this that we dont already have?
-igor
On 11/18/06, Chris Brock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You should note that the actual template parser and expression parser are
completely different. The template parser itself has control-flow
On 11/16/06, Korbinian Bachl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
what a stupid thing to say considering it was probably johan
that wrote that
part of the code in the first place. you wont be making any
friends here
saying things like these.
i replied to his statement - and if im on a black list
a problem in 1.2.3?
Martijn
On 11/15/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 11/14/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[VOTE] backport WICKET-68 to 1.2.4
--
a href=http://www.thebeststuffintheworld.com/vote_for/wicket;Vote/a
for a href=http
we also have
TextTemplate
PackaTgeTextTemplate
TextTemplateHeaderContributor
in wicket core, unless you need loops/logic in your template there is prob
no reason for velocity
-igor
On 11/15/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Log Message:
---
() but that is obviously missing.
-igor
On 11/15/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
strange that the project here (that did run on 1.2.3+) don't have any
problems until they used 1.3
but anyway fine by me.
johan
On 11/15/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
it surfaced in 1.3 but is also
there are two popular ways to integrate wicket and hibernate
a) wicket-spring-hibernate
wicket has excellent integration with spring, which in turn has excellent
integration with hibernate. in the core distro there is a wicket-sring
project/jar that provides this integration.
b)
[VOTE] backport WICKET-64 to 1.2.4
+1
On 11/14/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[VOTE] backport WICKET-64 to 1.2.4
[VOTE] backport WICKET-68 to 1.2.4
i am counting this as passed with
+1: 4
0: 0
-1: 0
and i just checked in the patch
-igor
On 11/14/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 11/14/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1
On 11/14/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[VOTE] backport WICKET-64
just noticed the below
this is a bad joke right?
markup: 1line
license: 14 lines
are we stripping the license block somewhere? or are we sending it to the
client?
you include two ajax editable choices and you get two of these headers in
the returned markup?
-igor
Modified:
what about them do you find unreadable?
i would be +1 for this. keeping up changes.xml is a pain imho, and since a
good amount will already be entered into jira it will take work off us.
-igor
On 11/13/06, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My 2ct:
JBoss does this. I find their change
On 11/13/06, Erik van Oosten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What the heck, I'll
volunteer to write those release notes if someone gives me that jira list.
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:changelog-panel
:)
-igor
Erik.
Igor
on /* ? means that this page gets
all path as
indexedURLparams??
if i mount it to /* he doesnt see it as wildcard but as
fixed *
Regards
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Sonntag
[x] yes remove RequiredTextField in 2.0 only
-igor
yeah, what eelco said.
-igor
I'm all for only changes the packages for 2.0. I still would like to
keep the breaks for 1.3 minimal, and generally get it over with asap.
Doing it just before the first public release sounds fine to me.
Eelco
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. November 2006 19:53
An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Wicket 2.0 and Flexible Navigation List/ add problem
add(new ListView(navList, navList) {
protected void
) {
protected void populateItem(ListItem item) {
i mean, the markup is present in this not in item, isnt it??
Best Regards,
Korbinian
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Samstag, 11. November 2006 18:56
An: wicket-dev
[x] move the wicket-spring-cattr projects to wicket stuff
there karthik can take care of them if he wants to
-igor
then fix your filter :)
-igor
On 11/11/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Strange... my filter puts them in the development tag.
Martijn
On 11/12/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
'but jira doesn't go to the dev list
it is on commits list.
johan
On 11/12/06,
first of all i wouldnt pass components around in a list.
there are a couple of ways to do that
the easist would probably be to have something like this:
interface ILinkFactory { Link newLink(Component parent, String id); }
then instead of ListBookmarkablePageLink you pass in ListILinkFactory.
On 11/10/06, Vincent demay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I ask myself a question. Why wicket needs to rewrite js libraries for
ajax or other client-side scripts or to include external scripts (date
picker for exemple).
we are rewriting the datepicker because our old one was not compatible
see my response to your previous post
-igor
On 11/10/06, Vincent Demay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I ask myself a question. Why wicket needs to rewrite js libraries for
ajax or other client-side scripts or to include external scripts (date
picker for exemple). There are a lot of
On 11/10/06, Vincent demay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
c) we have partial page updates of multiple components in a single
request -
do any of those frameworks have it? i briefly looked at ricko which had
a
similar ajax-envelope response that can encapsulate markup for multiple
parts of the
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. November 2006 17:43
An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Wicket 2.0 and Flexible Navigation List/ add problem
first of all i wouldnt pass components around in a list
On 11/10/06, Vincent demay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
imagine dojo provides stuff to make a conrner case like this easier.
I used AjaxRequestTarget to construct the envelope
and here is the client-side code. It is not perfect but it work (ie
remove CDATA is not as clean as I wanted but I not
i just factored out component usecheck related logic out of the Page and
into RequestCycle/DebugHelper. we are going to need a few more
variables/methods for more checks soon and i figured page is not the best
place to keep data like that.
while looking at the component usecheck though i noticed
that
implement IDetachable and call detach?
as i said above, this isnt about the object graph but rather the class
hierarchy.
-igor
Martijn
On 11/9/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
after having implemented the annotations and thought about this some
more, i
think i ended up
it
Component.onAttach() // so the deepest..
{
if(development)
{
set.add(component);
}
}
then after we know attach should be called
a Visitor checks all the components against that set.
johan
On 11/9/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
after having implemented the annotations
i need some concrete examples here martijn! :) you think i remember every
refactor i do?
removing object will really break everything out there, so i don tknow if we
want to do that in 1.x branch
-igor
On 11/7/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/7/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL
you mean things like removing the abstract compound model, etc?
all that was done as part of removing the object param so without that there
is no point in backporting.
-igor
On 11/7/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/7/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i need
that the removal of the object parameter was the
only idea behind the flattening, it makes the hierarchy much cleaner.
Martijn
On 11/7/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
you mean things like removing the abstract compound model, etc?
all that was done as part of removing the object param so without
On 11/7/06, craigdd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know, I think this really violates the concept of separation of
concerns, which wicket seems to really market.
the separation of concerns is in the fact that the template contains no
logic. so template designers can easily work with it,
didnt someone already submit a patch that does this?
-igor
On 11/6/06, Juergen Donnerstag [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently MockWebApplication and WicketTester are derived from
WebApplication which requires us to copy paste code from
MyApplication to MyWicketTester which is kind of ugly. I
fwiw, in my time as a wicket dev/user i dont think ive ever overridden
form.onsubmit(), i always put that behavior into the button's onsubmit().
-igor
On 11/6/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
C with default value 'false' - default does not process inner form.
IMO a form in a
done
-igor
On 11/5/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't we change the JIRA permission to allow the reporter to close the
issue? I have now a couple of times tried to get reporter to confirm and
close the issue but they couldn't because of to few permissions.
Frank
sounds reasonable
-igor
On 11/5/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11/5/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- cut 1.2.x from current head, fix only new bugs in 1.2.x branch,
eventually release 1.2.4
start working on 1.3 *NOW*
+1
Frank
thats what they keep telling me :)
-igor
On 11/5/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your the man :)
On 11/5/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
done
-igor
On 11/5/06, Frank Bille [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Shouldn't we change the JIRA permission to allow the reporter
On 11/5/06, Korbinian Bachl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
shame on me ...
my personal way is to always stick to standards - it might be harder
sometimes to achive this, but youre on a save side...
you contradict yourself by using wicket :P
-igor
Regards
Korbinian
-Ursprüngliche
is not yet finished and usable and
struts... well, split up into different projects)
-Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Igor Vaynberg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Montag, 6. November 2006 00:09
An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Re: [VOTE] Nested forms - don't process inner
i would like to see a real world usecase where you would have nested forms
but will not want to process the inner when the outer is submitted.
-igor
On 11/5/06, Matej Knopp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
People, people!
I just don't get it. By no means I want to generate invalid input. When
using
a couple of notes come to mind,
wicket:message can probably be handled just by writing out the message, but
other tags might require more advanced functionality that is better
encapsulated in components.
for wicket:message we decided to work using existing tools. we had a
component that
that wont work, some components such as wicket:link and wicket:message
only exist in markup
-igor
On 11/3/06, Petr Sakar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Question / Idea:
If I undestand it correctly, currently component hierarchy is build based
on markup. How about to do it other way round ? For
support both.
-igor
On 10/30/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/30/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10/29/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes private or package scope methods should always be called
not quiet, package scoped methods can still
+1
tell us how it profiles w/out the boolean
-igor
On 11/1/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All,
While profiling we see that the LoadableDetachableModel uses some
memory. Currently the LDM keeps track of whether it is attached in a
transient boolean.
If we change the
sounds good
-igor
On 11/1/06, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know it is too early to call, but I just wanted to make sure we're
on the same page...
This weekend is the first week anniversary of our 1.2.3 release, and
based on the reactions on the mailinglist it seems quite
so that they are all unique?
johan
On 10/29/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
nothing is ever simple, sigh :)
there is a usecase which might cause some nasty sideeffects
consider
class A extends Page {
@OnAttach protected void init() { System.out.println(A.init();); }
}
class
with the
same
name params)
johan
On 10/29/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess when scanning you get a method object.
Why not make a hash (method name and params) and throw that in a hashmap
so that they are all unique?
johan
On 10/29/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED
has a better idea?
johan
On 10/29/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
as far as the vote went i am going to summarize that it did not pass
with
binding votes being
0 +1
4 +0
1 -1
all further discussion should probably happen in a different thread
-igor
On 10/27/06, Korbinian
Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is 2.0 I figure?
Martijn
On 10/29/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
enum is fine as long as we still have the method w/out it that uses
our
default one
-igor
On 10/29/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Like
. No need for
annotations then.
It's not very mainstream to do so, though.
Martijn
On 10/29/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yes i am sure, what you actually get is
Method[] { A.init(), B.init(); }
so then i call them both, but because B overrides A.init() B.init() is
called twice
401 - 500 of 532 matches
Mail list logo
