On Mon, 2006-05-29 at 22:25 -0700, Eelco Hillenius wrote:
> I just wrote a unit test that proves identical ids in different head
> sections do not conflict. I should've known Juergen already thought
> about that.
>
> Anway, I'm curious what kind of exception you were getting and how
> that can be
I just wrote a unit test that proves identical ids in different head
sections do not conflict. I should've known Juergen already thought
about that.
Anway, I'm curious what kind of exception you were getting and how
that can be reproduced.
Eelco
On 5/29/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
can we also namespace the namespaces of the ids please?-IgorOn 5/29/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:Ah, they would have the same name in the header section? I see. Kind
of sucks that that is possible anyway. We might consider putting up anissue for this. A possible breakout would be
Ah, they would have the same name in the header section? I see. Kind
of sucks that that is possible anyway. We might consider putting up an
issue for this. A possible breakout would be to transform any provided
ids of header container components to e.g. an auto number or e.g.
'name space' the id.
> Though if you look at that: it's between tags, meaning
> it will be contributed to the header. What the resolver for that tag
> will do is try to resolve it to a package resource at run time, so
> /> will be expanded to href="/wicket-examples/nested/resources/wicket.markup.html.tree.Tr
> ee/t
s gone now...
So, no problem!
Cheers,
Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Eelco Hillenius
> Sent: 27 May 2006 01:45
> To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] Use of Tree Component
&
eers,
Dave
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Eelco Hillenius
> Sent: 27 May 2006 01:45
> To: wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [Wicket-user] Use of Tree Component
>
>
> Oh wait. Maybe you were confused wi
Oh wait. Maybe you were confused with "css" being a component id? I
don't think/ can't imagine I ever used "css" as a class.
If you look at Tree.html:
and Tree$DefaultNodePanel.html:
label
You can see all the classes being in there, and they are (partially)
denoted at tree.css.
D
> I'm a bit short on time now... would you be interested in providing a
> patch for that? Would be something like 'wicketTreeFoo'
> 'wicketTreeBar'. Feel free to apply where you think it is useful.
Sure, I don't mind, but...
I just updated svn and noticed that things have changed from the "old"
On 5/25/06, David Leangen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I could use a scheme like I do with the wizard component:
> class="wicketExtensionsWizardOuterTable". Would that work?
Yep, sure would!
I'm a bit short on time now... would you be interested in providing a
patch for that? Would be someth
> I could use a scheme like I do with the wizard component:
> class="wicketExtensionsWizardOuterTable". Would that work?
Yep, sure would!
> Well, we're trying to stick with general datastructures, such as
> List for ListView etc. I thought the TreeModel of Swing is quite
> complete, and has the
I am using the Tree component. Very nice!
Thanks. It's a hard one to get right, but I hope it suffices.
Question: would it be possible for the devs to rename the css from
something general, prone to name clashing (i.e. the current "css"), to
something more specific and less prone to conflict,
I am using the Tree component. Very nice!
Question: would it be possible for the devs to rename the css from
something general, prone to name clashing (i.e. the current "css"), to
something more specific and less prone to conflict, like
"treeComponentCss" or whatever?
Out of curiosity: I noticed
13 matches
Mail list logo
