Yes, wicket is great.
I cannot agree with the scriptaculos. Both wicket-extenssions and
scriptaculos don't support any html. They both support putting <ul><li> with
inside them any html like images <img> and divs spans <p> etc. It also
supports puting <div><div> or span div or span span etc on wicket if you
change a little bit.
But that doesn't mean any html. For instance you cannot put a table with
rows and colunms and then have the rows painted over key controls like *up
down left & right* arrows.
In scriptaculous looks for ul and the wicket one lives that open with the
renderer but it is fixed on the JavaScript by looking at the,
menu.firstChild.childNodes, that means that inside the menu container you
cannot put any html that whould argue that path that is.
Menu Container
Your Choices Container
Your Choices
Inside a table you have:
Menu Container
Your Table
Your Table Body (this is put in the DOM whether you specify it or not.
Your Rows
This is not accesible due to the firstChild.childNodes which in this case
would translate to table.tableBody and not the tr that you maight need. Also
the event handlers for key down key pressed etc are similar.
f(t)
On 7/24/07, Ryan Sonnek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nice work. It's pretty amazing how easy it is to create these "widgets"
with wicket.
One comment i have is that the scriptaculous autocomplete component
supports
"custom layouts" where you can display any any html for each autocomplete
result. It also supports the concept of a "key/value". you can have any
value posted back to the server, but it can display something different.
I'm sure your usecase is different enough to warrent another contribution.
Just wanted to mention that a widget already exists for a "similar"
usecase.
Ryan
On 7/24/07, Francisco Diaz Trepat - gmail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hi, igor, or someone:
>
> I took the liberty in writing an extensible autocomplete behavior based
on
> the AutocompleteTextField by Janne (jannehietamaki).
>
>
>
> I was supposed to open a JIRA but as I've never done this, I wanted to
get
> some instructions on how to do it.
>
> For those not following. The idea is to have an autocomplete behavior
that
> allows you to have *key* and *value* if you need it. This is done by
> either
> including a hidden field or by adding an attribute to the
> autocomplete-field, or it can be left out and works exactly like the one
> that is know available in the extensions package. The thing started out
as
> the current implementation used a fixed "node path" to get the elements
> that
> needed to render select etc. Now it uses an option/choice name.
>
> To do this I had to re-write the JavaScript and All the abstract classes
> so
> I did a new package all together.
>
> And renamed all of the classes to have both of them without any
conflicts.
> I
> also included a new collection class in the javascript to help out and I
> putted on a Wicket.Collection "package", and also named this
autocomplete
> as
> ExtensibleChoiceAutocomplete. *Extensible* because you can put in it any
> html markup you feel like and it will work (choose arrows etc),
> *Choice* because
> it can use key and value like a DropdownChoice, and *Autocomplete*
because
> it is an autocomplete.
>
> All naming convention might be wrong and some of my code might not make
> the
> grade for you guys, so what I would like is to have someone review it
and
> see if it is considered to be included somewhere.
>
> Wicket is awesome, I get lots of help all the time, and just want to
> contribute.
>
> There are some algorithms in the JavaScript that didn't worked on IE 7
and
> IE 6 because of a well known issue on IE that is that it does not
refresh
> document DOM on the assignment of the innerHTML property of an element.
> But
> that is taken care of by using element.all collection that works for IE
7
> and 6.
>
> Also my code is usually considered heavily commented so as I see wicket
> code
> in general is not, maybe the reviewer would have to erase some comments.
>
> Feel Free is the key. I want to contribute, keep contributing in the
> future,
> and learn a proper way not to step on any one's feet.
>
> Best regards,
> f(t)
>
