The proposed extension would just lead to more convenience, as it saves us from having to create child pages as page/panel pairs when their are 2 panels needed (assuming no inheritance at all)
John Krasnay wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:23:26PM +1100, Chris Colman wrote: >> >> In the panel example you give you must still provide all of the >> structural markup surrounding your panel tags in EVERY page's markup in >> your system and if you decide to make a system wide change of this >> structural markup you must edit every page's markup to reflect that >> change. In an OO markup world you provide the structural markup in as > > Huh? Why wouldn't the structural markup be inherited by child pages? > > To my mind, wicket:extend/wicket:child is just a convenience feature, to > save us from having to create child pages as page/panel pairs. > > jk > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > ----- ------- Stefan Fußenegger http://talk-on-tech.blogspot.com // looking for a nicer domain ;) -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-%3Cwicket%3Achild--%3E-tags-on-a-single-base-page--tf4738673.html#a13609607 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
