On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 20:06:13 +0100, Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
>>
>> > How are we going to support absolute package-path?
>>
>> Users can specify the Webapp base path, like you suggested.
>
>You certainly know this is a problem JSP world and the reason why
>almost all frameworks have something like $contextPath variables.
>Something, I definitly don't want.
You know what. Forget about my original response. You can
autodetect the context path because we have an object hierarchy. We can
always find out the path of the WebApplication found at the root of the
hierarchy.
>> > /admin/Home.html could solve the absolute Path problem. But I propose to
>> > combine it with a rootPackage name configureable through AppSettings. Like
>> > rootPath=wicket.myApp and href="/admin/Home.html" leads to class name
>> > wicket.myApp.admin.Home
>>
>> I was/am under the impression that we already know the root
>> classpath of our web application, you can initialize this value at
>> webapp startup.
>
>This idea is: usually your app has a base path like
>wicket.myexample.**- But you may not want to write it all the time.
>Somekind of root-Path or prefix or import would make life easier.
>Which html designer is interested in the jave package name?
Well yes and no. First of all you must realize that HTML
designers have to deal with HTML namespaces. This is nothing new or
magical to them. Java packages are no different from HTML namespaces.
If we really want, we can rename "." to ":" when refering to it under
HTML. We can always look at adding import support in the future but
again, I am very reluctant to add too much JSPish features to Wicket.
Look at what happened to JSP. I want the HTML code to look as much like
normal HTML as possible. Furthermore, in the future I am fairly
positive that IDEs will offer auto-complete for this which will further
alleviate the problem.
>> Currently autolinks only work for HTML. I don't see why the new
>> approach would be any differently. I think we *can* extend it to work
>> for images but right now we should focus on replacing the preexisting
>> behavior and not more.
>
>I don't agree. You implement some magic with html but not everything
>else? That will lead to confusions, for sure.
Again, ideally I want to implement *everything* with HTML. I'm
just saying that this proposal is part of an *incremental* step toward
doing that. I don't forsee any problems adding support for all other
links (to images, etc) in the future.
>> > will it support href in <head> like <link> as well?
>>
>> I am not familiar with <link>, please elaborate
>
>You use links to load external stylesheet or javascript files etc..
>The point I intended to make: We have only little experience with
>Wicket component in the <head> section. Are <span> tags supported in
><head> section?
<span> isn't supported in the head as far as I know. You're
refering to specific types of links from the <head> to CSS and JS. I
don't forsee problems handling this in the future as well.
>While thinking about it. Isn't this a typical problem to be solved by
>some url-rewriter? There are servlet based url-rewriter available, for
>sure.
What do you mean? You mean using an external tool? I'd rather
this be handled internally by Wicket if possible. Please elaborate on
your idea.
Thanks,
Gili
-------------------------------------------------------
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-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
