Johan Compagner wrote:
true that "if something is not rendered then it is not visible". The problem is that the you're confusing the name of the "visible" property with what it means, namely:isVisible() means "is visible IF the component is allowed to render"But the problem is that that line above is not true... isVisible() only checks the visible property, it doesn't check if it is also allowed to render.
That's what I'm saying! I'm saying "isVisible()" does not really mean what the word "visible" means! That is, "visible" means I can see it (in ordinary English), but isVisible() means something else, namely what I wrote above (precisely BECAUSE it does not check isRenderAllowed())!
In wicket if something isVisible() then it will be rendered, but if something is not rendered, you CANNOT conclude that isVisible(). Therefore, there ARE 2 different concepts!
But that's pretty much what you're saying in the rest of the mail, so I think we're agreeing... :-)
Regards, Sebastiaan
we have such a method that does both thats isVisibleInHierarchy() that checks everything. isVisible()/isRenderedAllowed() and all the parents if they are both that. what is true in wicket is that: Component not rendered then isVisible() or isRenderedAllowed() returned false; (ofcourse you have 1 exception to this rule and the component doesn't has markup at all, but thats another beast) johan
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature