After having Johan explain to me that It is only the IComponentAssignedModel that will cause serious problems and models like CompoundPropertyModel will work just fine. And since we do not use those. I have no objection to this restriction.
Maurice On 7/18/07, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i can see the value of having the model in the authorizationstrategy > this is pretty handy. But the problem is with wrapmodels because we > just can't give those to the outside world withing a constructor of a > component > because we have a big warning in the wrapOnAssigment(Component) call > that in that method you shouldn't really touch the component because it is > not > fully constructed yet. But we can't have it that the component is still not > fully constructed > in the getObject() call of the wrapped model. > > So i am +1 for such a change except that the model param will be null of not > given and > null if it is wrapped model. > > johan > > > On 7/18/07, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > In my project we often have the case where a user initially is allowed > > to construct a certain component (pages mostly) but whether he really > > can depends on the model of the page. > > So my request / suggestion is to enhance IAuthorizationStrategy with > > the following method isInstantiationAuthorized(Class, IModel). whether > > this methods is made available next to > > isInstantiationAuthorized(Class) or replaces it is not important. > > > > As far as i can see the following changes need to be made > > -Application.notifyComponentInstantiationListeners needs to be > > upgraded to receive the model to, or the component should not call > > notify untill the model has been set on the component (which happens > > on the next line) > > -the default listener needs to pass the model to the strategy. > > > > For regular models this should not be a problem but IWrapModels might > > have a problem when accessing anything else from the component but the > > id. Not passing the wrappedmodel but the original model is imo not an > > option because the main point of passing the model is to be able to > > use the getObject method. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Maurice > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > > _______________________________________________ > > Wicket-user mailing list > > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express > Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take > control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. > http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ > _______________________________________________ > Wicket-user mailing list > Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ Wicket-user mailing list Wicket-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
