ouldn't find any thread related to this in the archives, probably
> because
> the terms "id", "style" and "wicket:id" :)
> But, did anyone ever asked to Wicket just use the style id instead
> wicket:id
> to bind components? If yes, where is the thread? If
gt; On 4/23/07, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I couldn't find any thread related to this in the archives, probably
> > > because
> > > the terms "id", "style" and "wicket:id" :)
> > > But, did
couldn't find any thread related to this in the archives, probably
> > because
> > the terms "id", "style" and "wicket:id" :)
> > But, did anyone ever asked to Wicket just use the style id instead
> > wicket:id
> > to bind components? If
find any thread related to this in the archives, probably
> because
> the terms "id", "style" and "wicket:id" :)
> But, did anyone ever asked to Wicket just use the style id instead
> wicket:id
> to bind components? If yes, where is the thread? If not, ...
interference.
-igor
On 4/23/07, Bruno Borges <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I couldn't find any thread related to this in the archives, probably
because
the terms "id", "style" and "wicket:id" :)
But, did anyone ever asked to Wicket just use the style id instead
wicke
I couldn't find any thread related to this in the archives, probably because
the terms "id", "style" and "wicket:id" :)
But, did anyone ever asked to Wicket just use the style id instead wicket:id
to bind components? If yes, where is the thread? If not, ... why
