What you want is a bag of components that are separate from the
component hierarchy, afaiui?
Why not keep a list of components that need to be made invisible, and
add them to that list. call setvisible(false) on that list of
components in onbeforerender. Remove them from that list when you want
them visible again...
public class MyPage {
List<Component> hidden = new ArrayList<Component>();
public onBeforeRender() {
for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(true);
.... some arcane logic to mark them components...
hidden.add(some component);
....
for(Component comp : hidden) comp.setVisible(false);
}
Martijn
On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I get what you're saying, but the images in question are scattered
> across the page rather than in one place that could simply be
> enclosed. Thank you none the less, I do appreciate the insight.
>
> Cheers,
> Scott
>
>
> On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > well, thats kinda the point of the enclosure...
> >
> > it lets you group components together inside it, and let one of those
> > components drive the visibility of the entire enclosure
> >
> > -igor
> >
> >
> > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > I could, but it's kind of the opposite of what I want. I want to
> > > _not_ have to add an enclosing tag to the relevant portions of the
> > > html template. So I don't mind coding a WebMarkupContainer -- I just
> > > want to avoid having to change:
> > >
> > > <span wicket:id="foo"></span>
> > >
> > > to
> > >
> > > <div wicket:id="fooContainer"><span wicket:id="foo"></span></div>
> > >
> > > The basic problem is that sometimes we have a set of images for a
> > > product (scattered across a few components) and sometimes we don't.
> > > My thought is to wrap all of the relevant images in such a container
> > > that knows how to determine isVisible().
> > >
> > > Scott
> > >
> > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > you can prob port enclosure to 1.2.6 yourself if you wanted it badly
> > > >
> > > > -igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Pity we're not on 1.3 yet. Thank you though.
> > > > >
> > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/7/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > no, but you can try wicket:enclosure tag. see javadoc on
> > > Enclosure.java
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -igor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/7/07, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I want to make a few parts of my page visible or not in a
> > > consistent
> > > > > > > manner -- i.e. based on the same true/false result, which I derive
> > > > > > > from my model. Can I wrap the relevant components in
> > > > > > > WebMarkupContainer without adding a matching <div> tag to my
> > > markup?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thank you,
> > > > > > > Scott
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Scott Swank
> > > reformed mathematician
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Scott Swank
> reformed mathematician
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
