Thanks for that. I think you have a point, as BookmarkablePage has the
same characteristicts.
Eelco
On 3/31/06, Jesper Preuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks for listening,
>
> It's not because I wanted you to change it now, or change it at all.
> But more to understand you and why you have m
Thanks for listening,
It's not because I wanted you to change it now, or change it at all.
But more to understand you and why you have made this decision in
Wicket.
Will do, I will make an RFE for it.
On 3/31/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Would you please create an RFE for
Would you please create an RFE for it. Though it'll most likely be 1.3
(not 1.2) where it gets implements. 1.2 is now in beta (and close to
RC) and we try hard not to make (breaking) API change during this
phases..
Juergen
On 3/31/06, Jesper Preuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok I have attached
Ok I have attached some examples. Meaby you could tell me a better way
of using the Link and ExternalLink.
It's not because you can't live without the inheritance hierarchy, but
I have thought of the following cons of all links extends Links.
1. It's easier for the IDE to auto suggest what kind of
Sorry, might questionwas referring to
>Because I'm makeing a dynamic menu, where you can put your own links.
>Here I have to do more because it's not all using extends Link.
On 3/31/06, Jesper Preuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 3/31/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Do you?
ok
On 3/31/06, Jesper Preuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's just easier and more understandable to use:
>
> Link myLink;
> myLink = new ExternalLink(xxx);
>
> myLink = new BookmarkablePageLink(xx);
>
> than
> WebMarkupContainer myLink = new ExternalLink(xxx);
>
> myLink = new BookmarkablePage
It's just easier and more understandable to use:
Link myLink;
myLink = new ExternalLink(xxx);
myLink = new BookmarkablePageLink(xx);
than
WebMarkupContainer myLink = new ExternalLink(xxx);
myLink = new BookmarkablePageLink(xx);
On 3/31/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you
On 3/31/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you? What exactly are the differences.
You talk about it being bloatware if ExternalLink extends from Link.
And BookmarkablePageLinkis extinding the method onClick() but this
method is /not used/ then this BookmarkablePageLink is also
Do you? What exactly are the differences.
On 3/31/06, Jesper Preuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I would just think it was easier to understand that all types of links
> did inherit or implement some class.
>
> Because I'm makeing a dynamic menu, where you can put your own links.
> Here I have to
I'm thinking that if you make a superclass of Link. Link AbstractLink
extends Link.
Then BookmarkablePageLink could inherit from AbstractLink. Because
BookmarkablePageLink is not using onClick() and it's in Link class.
This is refactoring stuff, It's not because I would like to change all
of how
I would just think it was easier to understand that all types of links
did inherit or implement some class.
Because I'm makeing a dynamic menu, where you can put your own links.
Here I have to do more because it's not all using extends Link.
On 3/31/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot
Because ExternalLink does not point to a Wicket resource or listener.
It points to some wicket external address (e.g. google, ebay, amazon)
and hence doesn't need all the features/functionalities (and the
overhead) of Link and it derivatives.
Juergen
On 3/31/06, Jesper Preuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I would like to know if there is a reason why the class
wicket.markup.html.link.Link is not a parent to ExternalLink?
Because Link is extends by all these AjaxFallbackLink,
BookmarkablePageLink, DummyHomePage.TestLink, PageLink,
PagingNavigationIncrementLink, PagingNavigationLink, PopupCloseLink,
13 matches
Mail list logo
