Use a pre render listener to call your "render" method. The constructor
stuff is pretty bad though. If you have the listener look for the
@PostConstruct annotation it even looks like its supposed to work that way.
imo if multiple markup section inheritance were implemented you would really
limit how your allowed to use the framework. As it is its simple (ignoring
constructor/rendering pains) and in your control not the frameworks.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM, James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>wrote:
> And, this method doesn't really work very well either. You can't
> reliably call those abstract methods from the superclass' constructor.
>
> On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Chris Colman
> <chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com> wrote:
> >>class Page extends .... Page {
> >>
> >>abstract Component getPart1();
> >>abstract Component getPart2();
> >>}
> >>
> >><html>....
> >>
> >><div wicket:id="id4part1" />
> >><wicket:child />
> >><div wicket:id="id4part2" />
> >
> > That's the component based workaround that I mentioned which IMHO isn't
> > really the pure markup OO solution we're proposing. I'm hoping for true
> > markup inheritance that supports multiple overridable sections that
> > doesn't mandate a Java side coding change each time a markup editor adds
> > or removes a particular overridable section.
> >
> >
> >>On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
> >><chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com>wrote:
> >>
> >>> >Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long
> > discussions.
> >>> >Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
> >>> inheritance,
> >>> >not single.
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this
> > but
> >>> this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
> >>>
> >>> For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
> >>> class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
> >>> classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There
> > remains
> >>> only a single super class/markup file.
> >>>
> >>> All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
> >>> overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does
> > not
> >>> restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class:
> > You
> >>> can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that
> > does
> >>> not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the
> > number
> >>> of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
> >>> ONE.
> >>>
> >>> All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
> >>> support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
> >>> arbitrarily imposed constraint of N <= 1.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >Jeremy Thomerson
> >>> >-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
> >>> errors
> >>> >
> >>> >On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, "Arjun Dhar" <dhar...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >Hi,
> >>> > all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible
> > but I
> >>> >cant
> >>> >break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
> >>> parts
> >>> >of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
> >>> >
> >>> >Example:
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> ><HTML>
> >>> ><HEAD><title>BASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE</title></HEAD>
> >>> >
> >>> ><BODY>
> >>> > <wicket:child />
> >>> > <br />
> >>> > <h2>Some other Html common</h2>
> >>> > <wicket:child />
> >>> ></BODY>
> >>> ></HTML>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >-------------------------------------------
> >>> >
> >>> ><HTML>
> >>> ><HEAD><title>CHILD PAGE 1</title></HEAD>
> >>> >
> >>> ><BODY>
> >>> > <wicket:extend>
> >>> > Part 1 specific to Child Page
> >>> > </wicket:extend>
> >>> > Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what
> > appears
> >>> in
> >>> ><extend> is what should be rendered from a child page.
> >>> > <wicket:extend>
> >>> > Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
> >>> common
> >>> >HTML in parent page)
> >>> > </wicket:extend>
> >>> ></BODY>
> >>> ></HTML>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can
> > add
> >>> such
> >>> >capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
> >>> let me
> >>> >know or consider as a feature request?!
> >>> >
> >>> >-Thanks Arjun
> >>> >--
> >>> >View this message in context:
> >>>
> >>http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
> >>> >tp2278064p2278064.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
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
>
>
