Thanks Martin! That was the explanation that I expected. Thanks a lot, David
2015-04-14 10:42 GMT+02:00 Martin Grigorov <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > Your description is a bit confusing/unclear. > The markup looks OK to me. > YourBorder should add container1 and container2 components. > Any user of YourBorder will add children components to the border body. > In HTML terms the body is not direct descendant (because <div > class="layer2"> is in between) but for Wicket it is direct descendant > because there is no Wicket component that is both a child of the Border and > a parent of the Border's BodyContainer. > > Martin Grigorov > Freelancer, available for hire! > Wicket Training and Consulting > https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov > > On Mon, Apr 13, 2015 at 12:26 PM, David Kaufman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I'm currently migration our border classes from Wicket 1.4 to Wicket 6. > I'm > > not quite sure if I understand the change correctly. > > > > We have markup that looks something like this: > > > > </head> > > <body> > > <wicket:border> > > <div class="layer1"> > > <wicket:container wicket:id="container1" /> > > <div class="layer2"> > > <wicket:container wicket:id="container2" />u > > <wicket:body /> > > </div> > > </div> > > </wicket:border> > > </body> > > </html> > > > > Is it sufficient to call the constructor of the border, i.e. super("id", > > model), although the body is not a direct descendant? Since there is no > > enclosing wicket component around the border, (except the border > itself), I > > don't have to be concerned about adding any container to the border. Is > > this assumption correct? > > > > Thanks > > -David > > >
