well as long as there are workarounds, i'm fine with dropping the constructor change if everyone else seems to feel this way and there aren't any better arguments for it.
Eelco Hillenius wrote: > >> i don't care to much >> about accessing markup attributes in the constructor because i don't care >> much about driving code from markup. > > If you create components that are based on or work together with > Javascript components, this is a nice feature to have. Driving code > from markup sounds more negative than it is, as when working with ajax > and javascript, you *need* this, and the ability to do it at any time > is nice. > > There are workarounds, and I found that in the end I'm often coupling > such components on render time anyway (e.g. using header contributors > with LoadableDetachableModels). > > 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-user mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/IMPORTANT%3A-your-opinion-on-the-constructor-change-in-2.0-tf3358738.html#a9346362 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/wicket-user
