I disagree. Here the senario.
I have a tree table with 10 parent nodes. I have this is a pageable table (2 pages of 5 rows). I open up the 1st node in the 1st page, it has 50 children in, this increases the overall rows in the table and hence number of pages. It still maintains only 5 rows per page (ie 1st page has 1 parent, 4 children, 2 page has 5 children etc). Because the number of pages has increased to take into account the number of "visable" children I can easily navigate from page to page without having to scroll down all the children. When I have a node that has 10k children it clearly has to be paged has anyone else needed something like this? Craig igor.vaynberg wrote: > > it doesnt make sense to have a pageable tree > > -igor > > On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 3:36 AM, CraigGreenhalhj > <craig.greenha...@intersoftsolutions.co.uk> wrote: >> >> >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/Can-a-TreeTable-be-pagable--tp22098653p22098653.html >> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Can-a-TreeTable-be-pagable--tp22098653p22104803.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
