imho it can wait until the next version.
+0
-igor
On 4/27/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on that. And use EnumeratedType instead, so we can say
public AjaxEventBehavoir(ClientEvent event)
Frank
On 4/27/07, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2007,
+1 on that. And use EnumeratedType instead, so we can say
public AjaxEventBehavoir(ClientEvent event)
Frank
On 4/27/07, Timo Rantalaiho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Johan Compagner wrote:
> then you could maybe point us to a feature that was in 2.0 but is
overlooked
> by us
On Wed, 25 Apr 2007, Johan Compagner wrote:
> then you could maybe point us to a feature that was in 2.0 but is overlooked
> by use to backport
The ClientEvent enum
http://svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/wicket/trunk/wicket/src/java/wicket/ajax/ClientEvent.java?view=markup
was in 2.0 but does not
gmail rules ;)
On 4/26/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i dont see why we are having this discussion now. we are on jdk1.4 so
this
> is a moot point. lets have this discussion once we move to jdk1.5.
And modify the subject n
On 4/26/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i dont see why we are having this discussion now. we are on jdk1.4 so this
is a moot point. lets have this discussion once we move to jdk1.5.
And modify the subject next time please (not you Igor, but Johan and
Jan) when you start such a disc
he model field
> >> instead
> >> > of
> >> > calling getModel()
> >> > so if you would override getModel() all that code would fail (or
> always
> >> > see
> >> > a null value)
> >> >
> >> > johan
&
gt; johan
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, I don't get that. If you don't call getModel(), how can an
>> overwritten version break your code ? It would if you were calling
>> getModel(), but that's just what it no longer does !
>>
>> Jan.
>> --
>>
> a null value)
>> >
>> > johan
>> >
>>
>> Sorry, I don't get that. If you don't call getModel(), how can an
>> overwritten version break your code ? It would if you were calling
>> getModel(), but that's just what it no longer does
etely useless models.
> > // IModel model = current.getModel();
> > IModel model = current.model;
> > Since initModel() no longer calls getModel(), there are no longer
> > recursive
> > calls to initModel(), which solves our problem.
> >
> >
calling
getModel(), but that's just what it no longer does !
Jan.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10197572
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
t; see
> a null value)
>
> johan
>
Sorry, I don't get that. If you don't call getModel(), how can an
overwritten version break your code ? It would if you were calling
getModel(), but that's just what it no longer does !
Jan.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.
itModel() no longer calls getModel(), there are no longer
> recursive
> calls to initModel(), which solves our problem.
>
> Thanks.
> --
> View this message in context:
>
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10197016
> Sent fro
.
>> >
>> > Stefan Lindner
>> >
>> > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
>> > Von: Jan Vermeulen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 17:46
>> > An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> > Betreff: Re: Time
Model model = current.getModel();
IModel model = current.model;
Since initModel() no longer calls getModel(), there are no longer
recursive
calls to initModel(), which solves our problem.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projec
.getModel();
IModel model = current.model;
Since initModel() no longer calls getModel(), there are no longer recursive
calls to initModel(), which solves our problem.
Thanks.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf36
final.
>
> Stefan Lindner
>
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Jan Vermeulen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 17:46
> An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Timeframe to move wicket & wicket-ext projects to JDK1.5
>
>
>
> J
sprüngliche Nachricht-
Von: Jan Vermeulen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 25. April 2007 17:46
An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Timeframe to move wicket & wicket-ext projects to JDK1.5
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> typecast? in 2.0 you didn't have to ca
, 25. April 2007 17:46
An: wicket-dev@incubator.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Timeframe to move wicket & wicket-ext projects to JDK1.5
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> typecast? in 2.0 you didn't have to cast when using the model or
> getModelObject()
> where did you need to cast?
>
rns the extended interface.
And yes, I owe you some performance statistics to prove my point on
initModel(), but for now I'm stuck without a profiling tool...
Jan.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.
n.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10183375
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
case,
>> >> >> are there any plans to backport more changes from 2.0 ? Or aren't
>> >> there
>> >> >> just
>> >> >> not any ? I'm referring to refactorings in converters, models, ajax
>> &
>> >> >> versioning, ...
>> >> >>
>> &
, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> Thanks. I had been looking on the developer forum.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fortunately I could redirect you to the flickr page, saving some
>> >> bandwidth
>> >> > ;)
>>
We overwrite getModel() to allow components to return their own
implementation of IModel (JDK5 feature): quite handy, no ugly typecasts.
typecast? in 2.0 you didn't have to cast when using the model or
getModelObject()
where did you need to cast?
The initModel() is another story: I posted p
of a
border component.
Jan
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10182730
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
; > (Yes I'm dutch, and therefore cheap!)
>> >> >
>> >> > Martijn
>> >> >
>> >> > --
>> >> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
>> >> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##w
>> >> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On 4/24/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >> Thanks. I had been looking on the developer forum.
>> >> >
>> >> > Fortunately I could re
e
>> bandwidth
>> > ;)
>> >
>> > (Yes I'm dutch, and therefore cheap!)
>> >
>> > Martijn
>> >
>> > --
>> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
>> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.
.
>> >
>> > Fortunately I could redirect you to the flickr page, saving some
>> bandwidth
>> > ;)
>> >
>> > (Yes I'm dutch, and therefore cheap!)
>> >
>> > Martijn
>> >
>> > --
>> > Learn Wicket at
* adds ivaynberg's address to blocked ip list *
On 4/24/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
its that huge picture of the cat you have in your blog header. sometimes i
just sit there and shift-refresh your blog.
-igor
On 4/24/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On
its that huge picture of the cat you have in your blog header. sometimes i
just sit there and shift-refresh your blog.
-igor
On 4/24/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 4/24/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So now we're waiting what will happen with Wicket 1.4
Question is: have there been any changes (other than the generics and the
constructor change) from the old 2.0 branch that have been backported to the
new trunk ? Or is this trunk just what will become 1.3.1 ? In the last case,
are there any plans to backport more changes from 2.0 ? Or aren't ther
rtant fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10162126
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon
gt; Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10162126
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 4/24/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks. I had been looking on the developer forum.
Fortunately I could redirect you to the flickr page, saving some bandwidth ;)
(Yes I'm dutch, and therefore cheap!)
Martijn
--
Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
Join
on Europe: http://apachecon.com
> Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> Wicket 1.2.6 contains a very important fix. Download Wicket now!
> http://wicketframework.org
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicket---wicket-ext-projects-to-JDK1.5-tf3638110.html#a10159803
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
On 4/24/07, Jan Vermeulen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So now we're waiting what will happen with Wicket 1.4 (or will it finally be
called 2.0 after the vote ?). Problem is we're using JDK 1.5 and generics
all around, so we have to wait until the projects wicket & wicket-ext move
to JDK 1.5.
As p
ly be
called 2.0 after the vote ?). Problem is we're using JDK 1.5 and generics
all around, so we have to wait until the projects wicket & wicket-ext move
to JDK 1.5.
Is there any timeframe for that ?
Jan.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Timeframe-to-move-wicke
37 matches
Mail list logo
