Yeah, that's true. You're right. Maybe it isn't such a good idea then. Eelco
On 10/27/05, Laurent PETIT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > On 10/27/05, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > AbstractPropertyModel could work with something like a > > propertyresolver/ delegate (one more indirection :)) for getting and > > setting values based on a expression, and it might even be a good idea > > to have the option of having the default delegate as a application > > setting or something. Would be real easy to implement too. > > I like the idea of one more indirection :-) to allow more than a > single implementation. > > But I can see a problem arise if you do so: having many > implementations that eventually will not share the same syntax for > accessing properties. > > This could presumably be a risk for Components Reusability, if some > packaged components embark their own models and rely on a certain > syntax for specifying access to model properties ? > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. > Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course > Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 > Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the JBoss Inc. Get Certified Today * Register for a JBoss Training Course Free Certification Exam for All Training Attendees Through End of 2005 Visit http://www.jboss.com/services/certification for more information _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
