Unlike wrapping components in webmarkupcontainer, this should work for
all tags, including <td, <tr, etc.
On 3/19/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
yeah i could live with this solution, if it works for all kind of tags.
johan
On 3/19/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Indeed, it wil fail. but I kind of fail to see practical value of this
> behavior. To me it looks much more useful to be able to
> setVisible(false) and later setVisible(true), without having to worry
> about wrapping the element (which can be rather tricky with element
> like td).
>
> Perhaps we could have a flag on webmarkupcontainer, that would control
> how should it render when not visible? I mean, one more flag certainly
> won't harm. And it wouldn't break any of the existing code. All it
> would do is that when a component is not visible, it will render as
> <componentTagName style="display:none"
> id="componentId"></componentTagName>.
>
> -Matej
>
> On 3/19/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Currently everybody assumes (correctly) that the element is completely
> > removed (Ajax and non-Ajax), i.e. not present in the final markup.
> > This means that scripts that iterate through the dom, or check for the
> > document.getElementById() == null will fail if we implement this.
> >
> > I *strongly* discourage changing this behavior.
> >
> > Martijn
> >
> > On 3/19/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Will it? This seems to be actually quite a smart workaround. How
> > > exactly will this break existing clients? Only thing i'm concerned
> > > about is the validity of output markup. but imho when we preserve the
> > > original tag names, e.g. td will render as td, it should be all right.
> > >
> > > -Matej
> > >
> > > On 3/19/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > So you mean:
> > > >
> > > > Label l = Label("foo", "hello");
> > > > renders:
> > > > <span wicket:id="foo">hello</span>
> > > >
> > > > ... some ajax stuff, or a normal page render:
> > > >
> > > > l.setVisible(false);
> > > > renders:
> > > > <span wicket:id="foo" style="display:none"></span>
> > > > ?
> > > >
> > > > This can and will break existing clients in a very nasty manner,
> > > > because the markup id is still present in the final markup.
> > > >
> > > > Martijn
> > > >
> > > > On 3/19/07, Vincent Demay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Johan Compagner a écrit :
> > > > > >> > Also always just rendering the component but use the style to
> make in
> > > > > >> > invisible
> > > > > >> > could be a security problem. So that can't be the default.
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> What do you mean by security problem?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If the the component that is set to none visible is none
> visible
> > > > > > because of
> > > > > > security
> > > > > > So it has data that never should be send to the browser because
> the
> > > > > > user is
> > > > > > not allowed
> > > > > > to see it.
> > > > >
> > > > > But data is never send to the user because a none visible
> component will
> > > > > be render as an empty tag, so without data
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> > > > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> > > > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> > > > http://wicketframework.org
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Learn Wicket at ApacheCon Europe: http://apachecon.com
> > Join the wicket community at irc.freenode.net: ##wicket
> > Wicket 1.2.5 will keep your server alive. Download Wicket now!
> > http://wicketframework.org
> >
>
