then it would be more of a set() :)
-igor
On 3/31/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
if it was me just add()
and should just replace if there is already one with that id if not then
add.
(and don't throw an error)
thats how 2.0 really worked. (and for example Swing also)
johan
On 4/1/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> should actually be called addOrReplace() :)
>
> -igor
>
>
> On 3/31/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm fine with either too.
> >
> > -Matej
> >
> > On 3/31/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > That's an idea too. It's an extra method (not so nice) but more
> pricise
> > (nice).
> > >
> > > I'm fine with either. What do others think?
> > >
> > > Eelco
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/31/07, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > or add a replaceOrAdd() method
> > > >
> > > > -igor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 3/31/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm backporting Wicket In Action's code currently, and stumbled
> upon
> > > > > something I really liked to be able to do in 2.0 which I can't
do
> in
> > > > > the same way in 1.3.
> > > > >
> > > > > Consider this:
> > > > >
> > > > > void setContentPanel() {
> > > > > if (inEditMode) {
> > > > > new DiscountsEditList(this, "content");
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > new DiscountsList(this, "content");
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to be able to write that as:
> > > > >
> > > > > void setContentPanel() {
> > > > > if (inEditMode) {
> > > > > replace(new DiscountsEditList("content"));
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > replace(new DiscountsList("content"));
> > > > > }
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > However, there is this check in replace:
> > > > >
> > > > > // Add to map
> > > > > final Component replaced = put(child);
> > > > >
> > > > > // Look up to make sure it was already
in
> > the map
> > > > > if (replaced == null)
> > > > > {
> > > > > throw new
WicketRuntimeException(
> > > > >
> > exceptionMessage("Cannot
> > > > > replace a component which has not been
> > > > > added: id='"
> > > > >
+
> > > > > child.getId() + "', component=" + child));
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > so I'd have to do something like:
> > > > >
> > > > > if (get("content") != null) {
> > > > > replace(new DiscountsEditList("content"));
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > add(new DiscountsEditList("content"));
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > yech. I really don't see the added value of that check. I
> understand
> > > > > how it got in there, but when you think of it, what actual
problem
> > > > > would this solve? Imo, we should just get rid of that check so
> that
> > > > > calling replace would be a simple add if the component wasn't
> added
> > > > > yet.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eelco
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
