+1 doesn't seem to difficult to me to implement and wouldn't break anything
So having something in a predefined order looks fine to me.
johan
On 1/13/07, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1
On 1/12/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> we need an official vote on this, the s
+1
On 1/12/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
we need an official vote on this, the subject says it all.
this is to help with repainting of dependent (javascript, or other deps)
components.
-igor
+1 I think it makes sense API-wise, even if the problem could more
elegantly tackled in some other fashion.
Eelco
On 1/12/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
we need an official vote on this, the subject says it all.
this is to help with repainting of dependent (javascript, or other d
+0 (I never used the fact that things need to be in a specific order though).
Martijn
On 1/12/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+0 imho the proper way to do it would be to wrap the dependent components in
a webmarkup container and repaint that container instead of adding the
children
+0 imho the proper way to do it would be to wrap the dependent components in
a webmarkup container and repaint that container instead of adding the
children to the target.
-igor
On 1/12/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
we need an official vote on this, the subject says it all.
th
we need an official vote on this, the subject says it all.
this is to help with repainting of dependent (javascript, or other deps)
components.
-igor
