yes. no need to panic. we're not stupid. you'd just set autolinking to true in your settings.


Gili wrote:

        Sorry, I don't understand what you mean by "<wicket:link>
should not work on regions but just on a single nested anchor link".
Are we still talking about applying region-level autolink support? Are
you saying you want a <wicket:link> *per* link in the HTML page?!

        Sorry if I sound a bit panicy here but this implementation is
beginning to sound unusable to me. All I want to be able to do is
enable autolinking across my entire webapp and not have to think about
it at all. I don't want to have to insert <wicket:link> tags anywhere
at all .. it should just apply it anywhere possible. Can I do that with
the approach being proposed?

Gili

On Wed, 19 Jan 2005 01:11:14 -0800, Jonathan Locke wrote:



that all makes perfect sense to me assuming you mean that <wicket:link> should not work on regions but just on a single nested anchor link. i like the way automatic linking is off so people potentially get to learn about it when they turn it on...

Juergen Donnerstag wrote:



Below are some of the latest contributions to the discussion thread. I
thought we agreed on <wicket:link>.

Eelco:
Ok, ok. You know what? I'll just back off from this discussion, and see
where it heads. Maybe, I'll be convinced along the way, but for now: 'me
-1 for automatic anchor processing'.

Jon:
I have an idea to resolve this which might work for everyone.  we could
introduce <wicket:link> for explicitly declaring autolinks ([] still
goes away, thank goodness).  then we could make an app setting
setAutomaticLinking(boolean) to allow people to turn on the "implicit"
behavior.  the default would be off and docs would explain aliasing
behavior of automaticLinking.  it's a compromise, yes.  if we can't
agree on the availability of this feature, i suppose we should stick
with current functionality alone (just <wicket:link>).

i think we need to continue to support the ability to include web pages,
images and other resources on the classpath because we need to be able
to jar up components with their whole resource set.  i believe this
worked last time i looked...

Eelco:
+1


------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek. It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop





-------------------------------------------------------
The SF.Net email is sponsored by: Beat the post-holiday blues
Get a FREE limited edition SourceForge.net t-shirt from ThinkGeek.
It's fun and FREE -- well, almost....http://www.thinkgeek.com/sfshirt
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop







-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop





-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting
Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time
by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc.
Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl
_______________________________________________
Wicket-develop mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop

Reply via email to