Thanks for giving the best overview of my thoughts Igor. Are you reading my
mind?
On Nov 7, 2007 3:50 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> let me weigh in with my thoughts on this.
>
> a big problem with markup inheritance is the possibility of id collissions
>
> for example
>
> class basepage extends webpage {
> public basepage() {
> add(new label("label"));
> }
> }
>
> class concretepage extends basepage {
> public concretepage() {
> add(new label("label"));
> }
> }
>
> basepage: <body><div wicket:id="label"></div><wicket:child></body>
> concretepage: <wicket:extend><div wicket:id="label"></div></wicket:extend>
>
> now what you are proposing here makes this collission possibility
> significantly higher because essentially i CANNOT even have something
> like this:
>
> <wicket:implements id="foo1"><div wicket:id="label"></wicket:implements>
> <wicket:implements id="foo2"><div wicket:id="label"></wicket:implements>
>
> even though to me it looks like the nasting of foo1 and foo2 are
> seperate so i should be able to have a direct child with the same id
> in both....but i cannot.
>
> a lot of people are saying that this can be implemented with panels,
> and that is true. but actually implementing this with fragments will
> make it look very similar to this new strategy and does not have the
> id collission problem, because components ARE nested in two different
> containers:
>
> class basepage extends webpage {
> Fragment templateFoo1(String id) { return new emptyfragment(id); }
> Fragment templateFoo2(String id) { return new emptyfragment(id); }
> }
>
> <wicket:fragment wicket:id="foo1"><div
> wicket:id="label"></wicket:fragment>
> <wicket:fragment wicket:id="foo2"><div
> wicket:id="label"></wicket:fragment>
>
> thoughts?
>
> -igor
>
>
>
>
> On 11/2/07, Stefan Fußenegger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I just stumbled on a situation where it would be useful to have two or
> more
> > <wicket:child /> tags in a base page. Just consider a layout that
> consists
> > of the usual footer, header, navigation, and content parts. But now, the
> > content should be arranged in two columns, e.g. two different <div />s.
> >
> > To give a short example, the BasePage.html cloud look like this
> >
> > --------
> > <body>
> >
> > <!-- some layout markup -->
> >
> > <div class="content_left">
> > <wicket:child />
> > </div>
> >
> > <!-- more layout markup -->
> >
> > <div class="content_rigt">
> > <wicket:child />
> > </div>
> >
> > <!-- even more layout markup -->
> > </body>
> > --------
> >
> > And the Child.html markup would look like this:
> >
> > --------
> > <body>
> >
> > <div class="content_left">
> > <wicket:extend>
> > <!-- content of left column (first child) goes here -->
> > </wicket:extend>
> > </div>
> >
> > <div class="content_rigt">
> > <wicket:extend>
> > <!-- content of right column (second child) goes here -->
> > </wicket:extend>
> > </div>
> > </body>
> > --------
> >
> > Wouldn't that be a desirable feature? I tried to run the above example
> > expecting to get an exception. The second wicket:child/wicket:extend
> pair
> > was happily ignored though.
> >
> > Best regards, Stefan
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Multiple-%3Cwicket%3Achild--%3E-tags-on-a-single-base-page--tf4738673.html#a13551448
> > Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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]
>
>
--
Bruno Borges
blog.brunoborges.com.br
+55 1185657739
"The glory of great men should always be
measured by the means they have used to
acquire it."
- Francois de La Rochefoucauld
