sure. you can hook whatever you want there. My remark was solely about
ditching the version manager. Unless someone really wants it there,
but then we have to fix it to support redo, etc. I dont' think it's
worth it.
-Matej
On 9/29/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> but then still we have the event..
>
> johan
>
>
>
> On 9/29/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > newVersion();
> > looks much better to me than addStateChange(new
> > ChangeThatIsNotUsedAnyway() { public void undo().... });
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > On 9/29/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > yes we do
> > > we use it still extensively
> > > we dont cache the changes anymore those are gone, but we still uses it
> > to
> > > bump up the versions
> > > else how can we do that?
> > >
> > > johan
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On 9/29/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 9/27/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > the problem is that that still not really does auto dirty..
> > > > > Because where does it end? just add/remove/visitble/enable?
> > > > > The nice thing is we have already something like that: thats page
> > > > versioning
> > > > > with the undo/change map.
> > > > Don't get too attached to it :) We should remove it in the next
> > > > version, doesn't make much sense for 2nd level cache session store :)
> > > >
> > > > -Matej
> > > >
> > > > > If we extend that a little bit then we could have something like
> > > > > componentChanged(component) on a page (or somekind of listener)
> > > > > and that component did trigger it self what ever did happen on it
> > > > (getting a
> > > > > child, settting the visibility, or setting an internal none wicket
> > core
> > > > > property)
> > > > >
> > > > > johan
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On 9/26/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 9/26/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > but this discussion is not just about getter/setters (i don't
> > care
> > > > about
> > > > > > > those)
> > > > > > > but also for add and remove.. then we are getting into some
> > other
> > > > stuff
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes. Getters/ setters are less tricky. Though I'm still not
> > breaking
> > > > > > in sweat when I imagine removing final on add and remove.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eelco
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
