Actually no. I wrote that either a developer must either subclass both
or none at all, but this should be documented. Instead of documenting
that removeAll() does not invoke remove() I suggest you rephrase it as
"subclassing guidelines" as I mentioned above so it is more explicit.
Unless you choose to subclass, you won't care whether removeAll()
invokes remove() under the hood.
Gili
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
i think gili's point was more to the tune of the fact that he expects
removeall() to call remove() for each component as a contract. that way
if he overrides remove() and adds special functionality, he does not
also have to override removeall() because that should just forward the
call to remove() for each component.
-Igor
On 12/28/05, *Laurent PETIT* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
What about something like an internalRemove() that does everything
needed when the component is removed, but NOT versioning stuff.
And a remove() method, that does call internalRemove() and do the
versioning stuff.
Then the internalRemove() of MarkupContainer could call each
internalRemove() of each child component ... something like that ...
(don't know if it is a good point or not, just an idea out of my
brain).
OR, in the remove method of the MarkupContainer, take care of browsing
all the children and calling setParent(null) on them : a compromise
between calling remove() on all children, and just getting rid of the
children reference as it is done currently (I know that wicket is
"unmanaged", but I think that a container component should be
responsible of the lifecycle/management of its children components.
On 12/28/05, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> so what you are saying is that we should not optimize removeall()
and just
> make it loop over components and call container.remove() on them?
>
> this would be much simpler then the current implementation that
performs an
> optimization that saves a lot of what would be wasted session
space. calling
> removeall() on a container with 20 children using the simple
implementation
> would cause 20 change objects created and added to the version
history,
> while using the current implementation only a single change object is
> created. the net effect is the same.
>
> so this is a tradeoff between user's assumption of how the code
works and
> efficiency ( how it actually works ).
>
> if you feel strongly about this then start a vote to change the
removeall()
> impl to cascade remove() on each component.
>
> -Igor
>
>
>
> On 12/28/05, Gili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > I (partially) disagree. Invoking removeAll() should be
equivilent
> to
> > invoking remove() on all children individually -- assuming no
> > subclassing has occured. removeAll() might be more efficient,
but if it
> > doesn't get the job done what's the point? If subclassing has
entered
> > into the discussion then both remove() and removeAll() will
have to be
> > subclassed as a team (similar to hashCode() and equals()).
> >
> > Gili
> >
> > Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > > i do not think removeAll() should call the regular remove().
removeAll()
> > > generates a single change object and clears out the children,
i think
> > > that is enough. it does what it says in a simple and
efficient way.
> > >
> > > -Igor
> >
>
>
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through
log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&opclick
<http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_idv37&alloc_id865&opclick>
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
<mailto:Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
--
http://www.desktopbeautifier.com/
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=7637&alloc_id=16865&op=click
_______________________________________________
Wicket-user mailing list
Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
