> Hi, > > Actually, Wicket already works like this. It does *NOT* require the > <wicket:extend>, and if it's not present it just renders the contents of > the <wicket:child>. (Just tested this with beta4).
Awesome! [This behaviour must have changed since 1.2.6 because I tried removing the <extend> tag in a derived page using this version and the whole of the derived page got rendered - ie., it did not merge in any markup from the base page. If later versions have fixed this already then that's massively awesome indeed] > > Furthermore, your patch works exactly the same as far for multilple > child sections (as far as I can tell, or otherwise it should for > backwards compatibility), and does precisely what both you and Chris want. Awesome! So it all sounds like a very low risk improvement of the existing functionality - cool! Sorry to all of those who've put up with such a long, sometimes noisy thread but I think that's just part of the enthusiastic, collaborative process that popular open source projects such as Wicket have become and it's what continues to make them great and evolve to become even greater. I present to you just one final tweak at the edges for your comment: The OO puritan in me would love to see <wicket:child> aliased to <wicket:default> so that developers could use either <child> (deprecated but still available for backwards compatibility) or <default> - it won't break existing pages and lets new people use a more naturally fitting and more accurate tag: Which would flow more naturally and be more easily understood by new users reading the documentation? A) If you don't 'extend' a 'child' section in a derived page wicket uses the child section provided in the base page. (Comment: Extend a child? We're not extending the child section - we're replacing it!) B) If you don't 'extend' a 'default' section in a derived page wicket uses the default section provided in the base page. (Comment: Extend? It is the page you are extended by overriding one or more of its default sections. Again you aren't extending a default section you are replacing it!) Or even - now I'm really pushing my luck asking to provide two aliases ;) C) If you don't 'override' a 'default' section in a derived page wicket uses the 'default' section provided in the base page. (Comment - arrhh beautiful - 100% accurate and natural) At university I remember a lecturer telling a story of an interview with one of the creators of Unix. He was asked if he had any regrets over his illustrious career and he said "Yes I do, I regret naming the 'create' function 'creat' instead of 'create' just to save one byte!". How much frustration does a bad name cause? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
