WebMarkupContainer isn't the right choice i think
Then we miss Label (which is a WebComponent)
johan
On 3/19/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I don't think current behavior is the best one. Even if it can be
"corrent", it lacks convenience.
I suggest a flag on web markup container, that could change the way
invisible component is rendered. Default could be, that it's not
rendered at all. So it would not break any code. You could change it
though, to render invisible component as <componentTag
style="display:none" id="..."></componentTag>. This would work for
both ajax and regular renders, so that you could render invisible
component and later make it visible with ajax request.
-Matej
On 3/19/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > it seems taht this kind of construction is used to make workaround of
> > the bug. Is'n it?
>
> First, what bug? I don't know that this is a bug? I thought we are
> discussing a feature here. Secondly, this is not a workaround, but
> creating client side code based on a API contract: setVisible(false)
> removes the component markup completely, including its tags, from the
> final markup.
>
> It is based on the assumption that some element is *NOT* present at
> all. Your change will invert that behavior, and in such a way that it
> is only detectable by debugging your javascript. Not something I
> enjoy, nor 95% of the development community.
>
> You must understand that this is a major api break, not something
> minor. This is not detectable by a compiler. You *will* break existing
> scripts, pages and applications in a non-obvious way. Silent failures
> are something we try to avoid at all cost.
>
> Martijn
>
> On 3/19/07, Vincent Demay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Martijn Dashorst a écrit :
> > > Currently everybody assumes (correctly) that the element is
completely
> > > removed (Ajax and non-Ajax)
> > Yes of course, but it is the same for all workarounds ;)
> > When to change servlet to filter, users have to change their web xml.
> > Each time you change something users have to adapt their code
> > > 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.
> > >
> > it seems taht this kind of construction is used to make workaround of
> > the bug. Is'n it?
> > > 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
>
