On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:01:20 -0800, Jonathan Locke wrote:
>i'm not sure. it appears to be a rather complicated problem. how to
>match up the
>markup with java components that are potentially constructed and added
>out of order
>seems pretty hard to me right now. but maybe i just haven't thought of
>the right approach.
>
>our fallback for 1.0 would be to remove the wicket:component syntax
>altogether.
I think we're thinking too hard here. Bottom line here is that
we introduced <wicket:component> because we didn't want to have to
construct or interact with visual components on the Java end. In that
spirit:
1) Let M denote Model components. Let V denote Visual components.
2) If we have: M contains M, M, V then the parent M has to add() only
its two child Ms. The V is ignored.
3) If we have: M contains V contains M, then the parent M has to add
the child M. The V is totally ignored by the hierarchy.
V live in their own world and have no concept of the model
hierarchy (which is the model, when you think about it). And if you
think about it, the M also has no concept of the Vs.
In summary: View components interact with other View components
and Model components interact with other Model components -- but no
direct interaction with one another. What do you think?
Gili
-------------------------------------------------------
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-user mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
