On 9/23/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > look, instead of making something that is super flexible and super > complicated why dont we separate these two behaviors into two different > solutions. i dont think anyone would want to use both at the same time - and > even if they do we can declare wicket:message and wicket:staticmessage or > whatever. > > what johan wants has already been implemented by eelco (?), so take that and > commit it and give it a name WicketStaticMessageTagHandler and be done with > that usecase.
Juergen implemented that, but in a basic version (search stack only has the class that loaded the markup). I tried to fix it to take in the component, but there could be all kinds of troubles with that). Johan said earlier that a simple search stack would be good enough for him, so having that thing optionally is fine I guess. Btw, I think I still have to reverse that last change I made. > now lets come up with a solution for the second usecase and be done with > that as well. > > i mean if we can come up with something simple that will work for both > usecases then im more then fine with that, but lets not go overboard. Honestly, I didn't think being able to 'annotate' tags so that they can later be interpreted, e.g. to attach an attribute modifier was that crazy. I kind of see some beauty in that. Eelco ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys -- and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ Wicket-develop mailing list Wicket-develop@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-develop
