i dont feel strongly about it anymore. a lot of people seem to want to shoot themselves in the foot, and i am inclined to let them.
-igor On 6/24/07, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I believe the current behavior is intentional. Igor seemed to feel quite strongly about not using markup id specified in template. The reason is that it's not unique and it behaves wrongly in repeaters or when you put the component to page twice. I'd actually prefer wicket to preserve specified attribute because it can be handy in cauple of cases. But that's just my opinion. -Matej On 6/24/07, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 6/24/07, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think everyone ran into it at one time... I know I did. Last time I > > think Igor threw some issues with repeaters into the mix, and then the > > discussion went dead. > > For all I know, it worked in 2.0. I remember testing it specifically. > I'm just surprised it doesn't work the same in 1.3. Did we forget to > backport it maybe? The name of the method is a pretty clear indication > what we had in mind with it, right? > > FYI, I tested all of the examples of wicket-examples, including the > ajax and repeater tests, and they worked fine. The unit test that > fails is RadioGroupTest#testFormProcessing but that is because the > page tested isn't backed up by the proper markup (it uses > org.apache.wicket.protocol.http.MockPage which doesn't have any of the > components that are added in that test). So the test is faulty here. > > Eelco >
