-Igor
On 12/28/05, Gili <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
