Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

On dinsdag 4 april 2017 00:24:56 CEST Pedro Santos wrote: > > TL;DR Vote at the bottom > > What does it mean? That your email can be skipped to the voting part or > that I was prolix in my last email? I suspected the discussing was becoming is a bit lengthy for everyone to follow. So to make

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

Something went wrong sending this mail. I did write some more, but somehow my mail client lost it. So here's the vote again: I think we are not going to agree on this proposal. I think it is not an improvement and I do not agree with you that IModel should not be detachable by default. So lets

[VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

TL;DR Vote at the bottom On zondag 2 april 2017 00:25:12 CEST Pedro Santos wrote: > > The major concern I have with this change is that it does not improve > > anything. This change has impact on both the calling and implementing > > side of detach. Neither side becomes easier. > > It does

Re: Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

On donderdag 30 maart 2017 17:49:40 CEST Pedro Santos wrote: > > 1674 calls to IDetachable.detach() from our codebase, most for models > > hard to conclude anything from this number, because this proposal didn't > change the most commonly used models abstractions: > LoadableDetachableModel,

Re: Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

h Wicket 8.x I won't bother at all! >> >>>> >> >>>> Is your branch complete ? I see no changes in wicket-examples. Maybe >> it >> >>> is >> >>>> because several months ago I've cleaned all empty impls of #detach(). >> I

Re: Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

On woensdag 29 maart 2017 17:02:05 CEST Pedro Santos wrote: > Hi Emond, > > > It is an integral part of the lifecycle of IModel > > Most of the models in Wicket and Wicketstuff have no detach logic, hardly > an integral part. Just because not all implementations need an implementation of

Re: Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

Hi Pedro, I fail to see why it is a problem for IModel to be IDetachable. It is an integral part of the lifecycle of IModel. One could say that the sole purpose of the detach traversal is to detach all models. A model knows how to retrieve data, update data and to detach its internal

Re: Use jQuery 3.x by default in 8.x

Hi Martin, jQuery 3.x is not about dropping browser support, but changes in API. They were planning to have a jQuery Compat 3.x for IE8 and older, but they decided to stop that just over a year ago. jQuery 3.x supports the following browsers: * Internet Explorer: 9+ * Chrome, Edge, Firefox,

Re: Use jQuery 3.x by default in 8.x

Agreed, +1 for 3.x Emond On maandag 20 maart 2017 09:52:17 CET Martin Grigorov wrote: > Hi, > > It is 14 months since Microsoft droppped the support for IE 10 and less [0]. > Do you agree that it is OK to use jQuery 3.x in Wicket 8.x by default ? > > Applications will still be able to set

Re: [VOTE] WICKET-6322 lambda factories for behaviors

Hi, I don't see any reason for having a class that only aliases methods in other classes. So here's +1 for 'v'. The onUpdate/onSubmit/onChange methods all suffer from the same problem: you either need 2 lambda's or you provide an incomplete API. If we only provide a method with 1 lambda you

Re: Proposal: Remove all component lambda-based factory methods before 8.0.0 final

> >> Regards > >> Sven > >> > >> On 08.02.2017 16:55, Martin Grigorov wrote: > >>> https://github.com/apache/wicket/pull/211 :-) > >>> Let's drop them all! > >>> > >>> Martin Grigorov > >>>

Re: Proposal: Remove all component lambda-based factory methods before 8.0.0 final

I can live with the following: Factory methodes should: * accept exactly 1 lambda (and possibly an id) * be a static method on the component or behavior they create * be given meaningfull names * be limited to at most 1 or 2 per type * not pass the instance they create to the lambda This

Re: Proposal: Remove all component lambda-based factory methods before 8.0.0 final

Hi, I also agree. We should get familiar with lambda models first and perhaps we can try some builders in an experimental module. Lambdas don't work very well when the relation between the method name and the code inside the lambda is not very clear. +1 to remove the factory methods. Best

Re: What else do we want to do before 8.0.0 final ?

different apis is not needed anymore. Emond On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:02 PM, Martin Grigorov <mgrigo...@apache.org> wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Emond Papegaaij < > emond.papega...@topicus.nl> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I was wondering if we still

Re: What else do we want to do before 8.0.0 final ?

Hi, I was wondering if we still need to support Tomcat 7.0 with native websockets. As far as I can see, Tomcat 8.0 and 8.5 both support JSR 356 and Tomcat 7.0 does not support Servlet 3.1, which is required for Wicket 8. Therefore, I think we should drop the wicket-native-websocket-tomcat

Re: JSON License and Apache Projects

Hi, Does this mean we can no longer include these files in Wicket 6 and 7? If so, that would mean a serious API break, or we need to duplicate the entire API in new classes. The classes are part of the public API of AbstractDefaultAjaxBehavior and the classes are publicly available. Looking at

Re: buildbot failure in on wicket-master

;: >> >> LambdaModel.map(IModel, SerializableFunction, SerializableBiConsumer) >> >> LambdaModel.map(IModel, SerializableFunction) >> >> Sven >> >> >> >> Am 15.11.2016 um 20:52 schrieb Emond Papegaaij: >> >>>

Re: Make IXyzListener's methods default with empty body

+1 On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 12:37 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: > Yes. This discussion is about exactly what I propose. > I like the idea. > > Other opinions ? > > Martin Grigorov > Wicket Training and Consulting > https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov > > On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at

Re: buildbot failure in on wicket-master

Tue, Nov 15, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Emond Papegaaij <emond.papega...@topicus.nl >> wrote: > >> It seems I've hit a bug in javac: >> LambdaModelTest[46,61] reference to of is ambiguous: >>of(SerializableSupplier, SerializableConsumer) >> <X,T> of(IModel,

Re: buildbot failure in on wicket-master

this build Build Source Stamp: [branch > master] b40e9e1cd9ad7a9ffc63ab6c329c8d9c8b78b924 Blamelist: Emond Papegaaij > <papega...@apache.org> > > BUILD FAILED: failed compile > > Sincerely, > -The Buildbot

Implementation of LambdaModel

Hi, Martijn was doing some memory benchmarking on models, including LambdaModel, so I decided to take a closer look at its current implementation. First of all, I've got some doubts about the current implementation of equals and hashCode: are 2 LambdaModels really equal when their getters and

Re: LambdaModel for readonly models

Can't this method be made like this (perhaps on IModel?): /** * Create a read-only {@link IModel}. Usage: * * {@code * LambdaModel.of(person::getName) * } * * Note that {@link IModel} is a {@code FunctionalInterface} and you can * also use a lambda directly

Re: LambdaModel for readonly models

Didn't we make IModel a functional interface with default methods for setObject and detach? In that case, you can simply use a method reference as your model. Emond On donderdag 10 november 2016 12:56:50 CET Martijn Dashorst wrote: > I'm working on replacing my AROM's and often they just call

Re: What else do we want to do before 8.0.0 final ?

On maandag 31 oktober 2016 16:38:48 CET Martin Grigorov wrote: > Hi Emond, > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Emond Papegaaij <emond.papega...@topicus.nl > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I'm not sure about the duplicate functional interfaces in > >

Re: What else do we want to do before 8.0.0 final ?

Hi, I'm not sure about the duplicate functional interfaces in org.apache.wicket.lambda. The current solution ties these interfaces to Wicket, making it impossible to share function-libraries between wicket and non-wicket code. For example this method returns a function that prints a time with

Re: Unable to build 7.5: WeakReference is incompatible with WR

ee a lot of complains by users. > I know that methods and classes should be final sometimes. Please convince > us this is one of those cases. > > Martin Grigorov > Wicket Training and Consulting > https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 3:1

Re: Unable to build 7.5: WeakReference is incompatible with WR

would break it. > Is it OK to remove the 'final's ? > > Martin Grigorov > Wicket Training and Consulting > https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov > > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 2:51 PM, Emond Papegaaij <emond.papega...@topicus.nl > > wrote: > > > > On dinsdag

Re: Unable to build 7.5: WeakReference is incompatible with WR

On dinsdag 27 september 2016 14:17:37 CEST Martin Grigorov wrote: > Fixed! > > It seems the backport from 8.x (master) broke it. > The generics are fine with JDK 8. > > But now there is broken Clirr because of Csrf request cycle listener This is a bug in Clirr, which I think I fixed. A private

Re: wicket git commit: WICKET-6245 Open up CsrfPreventionRequestCycleListener for extension

Hi, Actually, there are 3. With the current configuration, 2 of those methods will never be called. You need to explicitly allow or suppress certain actions. Given the nature of the three methods, I think they all need a different style: For 'allow', I suggest to change the message of 'allow'

Re: [GitHub] wicket issue #177: Expensive validator wicket 7.x

Hi, I agree. This is best implemented as part of the validator. You could for example create a validator decorator that only forwards the calls to the actual validator when expensive validation is required. This condition can depend on many factors, but in your case, you could check if the

Re: NashornResourceReference

lass filter - I am going to have a look at it. Thanks! > > kind regards > > Tobias > > > Am 07.01.2016 um 08:24 schrieb Emond Papegaaij > > <emond.papega...@topicus.nl>: > > > > Hi Tobias, > > > > This is a very nice feature indeed, but

Re: NashornResourceReference

ias > > > Am 07.01.2016 um 13:43 schrieb Emond Papegaaij > > <emond.papega...@topicus.nl>: > > > > Hi Tobias, > > > > I've checked your code, and the testcase does stop in 5 seconds, but the > > thread does not. The cancelation of the future

Re: NashornResourceReference

; > while(true){} > > For me the unit test stops running after 5 seconds. > > I also added the class filter to reject all if no own filter is defined by > overriding the corresponding method. > > kind regards > > Tobias > > > Am 07.01.2016 um 11:49 s

Re: [wicket8] Use which servlet api? 3.0 or 3.1

+1 for 3.1 On Tue, Oct 6, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Tobias Soloschenko wrote: > Hi, > > I think servlet 3.1 and JEE 7 should be used in the next version. Wicket 7 > is targeting JEE 6 so it is covered. > > kind regards > > Tobias > > Am 05.10.15 um 22:17 schrieb Martijn

Wicket 7 Performance

Hi all, Martijn and I spent some more time measuring Wicket's performance, mostly in component tree construction. It turned out that code written bij Johan, back in the Wicket 1.2 time, causes O(n^2) complexity on the number children of a MarkupContainer. We've rewritten the entire children

ServletWebResponse.sendRedirect calls disableCaching twice

Hi, I just noticed that ServletWebResponse.sendRedirect calls disableCaching twice. The second call was explicitly added in ea295d44bbc7e8455b6f70c70cc2aebb4ff16664 for WICKET-3921. However, at that time, the first call was already there. I do not see how this change could have made any

Re: [VOTE] Release Wicket 7.0.0 take 3

This commit is in the released source tarball. Are you sure you are not using an older release? Line 727 of Page.java reads 'private void setNextAvailableId()', which is what it should be after d4c7cdbe7b62534ca537d175fc4a23f0ed56125b . Also, the release branch on

Re: Ajax updates do not quite work due to WICKET-5933

I've reopened 5933, and I think the change should be reverted. The reason a page is touched on retrieval is that there is no way to be sure the page did not change once it has been read from the page store. The user is free to change the state of the page in whatever way he/she sees fit. Only a

Re: Ajax updates do not quite work due to WICKET-5933

and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: I've reopened 5933, and I think the change should be reverted. The reason a page is touched on retrieval is that there is no way to be sure the page did not change once

Re: git commit: WICKET-5350 reintroduce wildcards for repeater over models, otherwise subclasses is hindered

Hi Sven, It's easy to change the testcase to: class NumberListViewN extends Number extends ListViewN and new NumberListViewInteger(integers, integers) I think the constructor in Wicket 6 is wrong. It should be IModel? extends ListT model: we don't care what type the list is, but we do

Re: git commit: WICKET-5350 reintroduce wildcards for repeater over models, otherwise subclasses is hindered

, Emond Papegaaij wrote: Hi Sven, It's easy to change the testcase to: class NumberListViewN extends Number extends ListViewN and new NumberListViewInteger(integers, integers) I think the constructor in Wicket 6 is wrong. It should be IModel? extends ListT model: we

Re: OnAction behaviors

Hi, This sounds like a very useful feature. IMHO, the extra processing time is insignificant. Even if you have several hundreds behaviors added to the component, I doubt if it will take more than 1 or 2 ms to notify them all. We already have beforeRender and afterRender methods, which are

Re: [VOTE] Release wicket-eclipse-settings v.2

+1 release On Tuesday 07 April 2015 14:20:50 Martin Grigorov wrote: This is a vote to release the wicket-eclipse-settings version 2. Version 2 uses JDK 1.7 and should be used by Wicket 7.x Wicket Eclipse Settings is a project to specify Eclipse settings for a uniform development environment

Re: Time constraints til 09-04: wicket 7

I've tested the settings, and they look fine. The compiler level is set to 7 and formatting works as expected. Best regards, Emond On Wednesday 01 April 2015 22:30:15 Tobias Soloschenko wrote: I just gave some hints - you did all the stuff! ;-) I saw something about a new SNAPSHOT version

Re: [VOTE] Release wicket-eclipse-settings 1

+1 to release On Friday 13 March 2015 09:15:59 Martijn Dashorst wrote: This is a vote to release the wicket-eclipse-settings version 1. Wicket Eclipse Settings is a project to specify Eclipse settings for a uniform development environment between all Eclipse using Wicket Team members. Most

Re: [DISCUSSION] Remove .settings of projects in github

into the files folder of wicket-eclipse-settings and as I understood eclipse then takes the setting for each project which has the wicket/pom.xml with the maven-eclipse-plugin as parent. kind regards Tobias Am 05.03.15 um 08:16 schrieb Emond Papegaaij: Hi Tobias, This is a limitation

Re: [DISCUSSION] Remove .settings of projects in github

version1.0/version /dependency /dependencies /plugin kind regards Tobias Am 05.03.15 um 09:52 schrieb Emond Papegaaij: Hi Tobias, It seems you are missing the additionalConfig section in the maven

Re: [DISCUSSION] Remove .settings of projects in github

- the commits can be squashed then. Am 04.03.15 um 10:28 schrieb Emond Papegaaij: The maven-eclipse-plugin is not maintained at all. Everyone should use m2e. We have developed an eclipse plugin to apply these settings automatically when using m2e: https://github.com/topicusonderwijs/m2e

Re: [DISCUSSION] Remove .settings of projects in github

The maven-eclipse-plugin is not maintained at all. Everyone should use m2e. We have developed an eclipse plugin to apply these settings automatically when using m2e: https://github.com/topicusonderwijs/m2e-settings I think we should create a wicket-eclipse-settings maven artifact and use that.

Re: [WICKET7] Old Tree/TreeTable removal

I don't like keeping code around just for the sake of keeping it around. Even unmaintained code takes time to maintain. For example, the code needs to be updated for Wicket 7 to keep it compiling, this will happen again with Wicket 8 etc. It might also need changes to migrate to newer servlet

Re: [WICKET7] Old Tree/TreeTable removal

On Wednesday 04 March 2015 09:23:06 Martin Grigorov wrote: On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 9:13 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl WicketStuff InMethodGrid is currently excluded from the build in 7.x because it uses the old Tree and for 2 years no one spend his time to fix

Re: [WICKET7] Old Tree/TreeTable removal

On Tuesday 03 March 2015 21:23:37 Martin Grigorov wrote: On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 9:11 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: I don't like keeping code around just for the sake of keeping it around. Even unmaintained code takes time to maintain. For example, the code needs

Re: Decommission of wicket-datetime

+1 On Thursday 05 February 2015 23:26:18 Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, I think I have asked the same an year or two ago: What do you think about moving wicket-datetime module to WicketStuff ? The problem with it is that it uses YUI 2.x which is very old and not supported. Migration to YUI

Re: AtmosphereBehavior - possible invalid callback URL

You wrote that code :) I think he is right. Best regards, Emond On Friday 09 January 2015 14:34:14 Martin Grigorov wrote: Sounds reasonable to me. Emond ? Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Daniel Stoch

Re: Be careful with wicket-atmosphere [in the EU]

The problem is that this 'feature' can only be disabled via an init-param. We could check the parameter and refuse to start, but we can't disable this from Wicket code. Emond On Friday 03 October 2014 13:54:26 Martin Grigorov wrote: Atmosphere does this since its very early versions... I

Re: Be careful with wicket-atmosphere [in the EU]

business to try to disable it. Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 2:08 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: The problem is that this 'feature' can only be disabled via an init-param

Re: Use pedantic-pom-enforcers (aka pom nazi)?

Or use cglib-nodep, it has a bundled asm version in a scoped package. Emond On Sunday 21 September 2014 23:21:07 Martin Grigorov wrote: add an exclude for asm:4.2 and test Spring injection Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov On Sun, Sep 21, 2014

Re: git commit: WICKET-5682: always trigger onload after domready

Just for the record, because my mail client replied directly to Martin. On Wednesday 27 August 2014 12:46:45 Martin Grigorov wrote: On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:41 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: On Wednesday 27 August 2014 11:57:24 you wrote: Hi Emond, cut some

Re: wicket pull request: change IModel to readonly by default

I think most components only need a read-only model. Note that read-only does not prevent you from changing properties on the object, just not setObject. PropertyModels will still work. Therefore, it seems best to use IModel -- the shortest to write and already used by all components -- as the

Re: Using @Nullable without check for null

These annotations are wrong and should be removed. Thanks for noticing. Eclipse had a tendency to automatically set these annotations. This bug is fixed by now, but these classes were written when Eclipse still had the bug. The Predicate interface states that it is allowed to throw a

Re: Using @Nullable without check for null

, 2014 at 7:36 PM, Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.orgwrote: What about the #equals() ? Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 8:20 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.comwrote: These annotations are wrong and should be removed. Thanks for noticing

Re: One CDI modules in master

No, we should keep the wicket-cdi module in wicket 7 as well. You cannot use the cdi-1.1 module with older (jee6) containers, which is the same generation as our servlet 3.0 requirement. Removing it would break cdi support for containers such as jboss 7 and glassfish 3.1. Best regards, Emond

Re: [VOTE] Release wicket 6.14.0

The issue you are referring to is fixed in 6.14.0, according to JIRA, so why not release? What does 6.14.0 break that did work in 6.13.0? On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:33 PM, Michael Haitz michael.ha...@1und1.dewrote: [X] No, don't release Apache Wicket 6.14.0, because ... of

Re: [VOTE] Release wicket 6.14.0

These fields have been like this for ages, right? Something that does not pose any problems for most users and is not a security risk, is not a blocking issue IMHO. We can't postpone wicket releases until all issues are solved, else we will never release. If something broke since 6.12 or 6.13

Re: Problems with Weld in wicket-exaamples

6.13.0 has the same error in the log, but cdi works fine. I think it's only trying to tell that injection of the servlet components is not available, something we don't need for the examples. On Wednesday 12 February 2014 14:00:13 Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, While testing 6.14.0 I've hit

Re: Problems with Weld in wicket-exaamples

On Wednesday 12 February 2014 14:28:06 Martin Grigorov wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: 6.13.0 has the same error in the log, but cdi works fine. I think it's only trying to tell that injection of the servlet components

Re: Problems with Weld in wicket-exaamples

On Wednesday 12 February 2014 14:28:06 Martin Grigorov wrote: On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: 6.13.0 has the same error in the log, but cdi works fine. I think it's only trying to tell that injection of the servlet components

Re: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javax/servlet/DispatcherType

://localhost:8080/cdi/conversation So there is something new in 6.x that is not ported to 7.x Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting On Tue, Feb 4, 2014 at 1:53 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nlwrote: These warnings are caused by a slightly outdated version of weld

Re: java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: javax/servlet/DispatcherType

These warnings are caused by a slightly outdated version of weld. The log- level for these warnings is changed from warn to debug in newer versions. I don't know what could explain the difference in size. Did you compare the contents? Emond On Monday 03 February 2014 17:43:19 Martin Grigorov

Re: Wicket 7 development status

I had to remove the BeanManager JNDI reference from web.xml to get things running, but it works fine without it. Emond On Monday 27 January 2014 13:24:21 Martin Grigorov wrote: what problems with wicket-examples ? cdi related ones or something else ? Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and

Re: Wicket 7 development status

Hi, I agree to release a milestone. There are however a few tasks related to the experimental modules remaining before a milestone can be released. First, wicket-cdi-1.1 needs to be ported from Wicket 6 to 7. The current module in 7 is broken and outdated. I think we can make it part of the

Re: [VOTE] Make experimental modules stable

1. Wicket Atmosphere [ ] Stable [X] Keep experimental 2. Wicket Bean Validation [X] Stable [ ] Keep experimental 3. Wicket Bootstrap [ ] Stable [X] Keep experimental or drop 4. Wicket CDI 1.1 [X] Stable [ ] Keep experimental 5. Wicket Examples NG [ ] Stable [X] Keep experimental or drop

Re: New wicket-cdi-1.1 implementation in 6.x

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 3:02 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: Hi John, You are mixing two concepts here: conversation propagation and auto- conversations. These two operate separately. Auto-conversations are started _and_ ended automatically. You can use

Re: Releasing 6.13.0: Test failure in 6.x

This testcase only failed (prior to fixing the bug) when a large number of threads was used to acquire and release locks. Do you hit a deadlock or is it starvation? Perhaps we need to increase the timeout. If you do hit a deadlock, it should not matter what the timeout is. We can even give it 1

Re: wicket-6.x branch build is broken due to cdi-1.1

On Tuesday 26 November 2013 11:59:33 Martin Grigorov wrote: Could you please take a look at http://ci.apache.org/builders/wicket-branch-6.x/builds/216/steps/compile/log s/stdio ? I experience the same errors locally. The error should be fixed. Why did I not get a mail about this failure?

Re: New wicket-cdi-1.1 implementation in 6.x

at 4:19 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 9:45 PM, John Sarman johnsar...@gmail.com wrote: NonContextual.of(application.getClass()).postConstruct(application); Why call postConstruct and not inject? It does inject but also calls

Re: buildbot failure in ASF Buildbot on wicket-branch-6.x

are available at: http://ci.apache.org/builders/wicket-branch-6.x/builds/206 Buildbot URL: http://ci.apache.org/ Buildslave for this Build: hemera_ubuntu Build Reason: scheduler Build Source Stamp: [branch wicket-6.x] 4824b031d8389d7b43ed1c1f6e8173f87114cabd Blamelist: Emond Papegaaij

New wicket-cdi-1.1 implementation in 6.x

Hi all, I've just merged the changes to the wicket-cdi-1.1 module back to wicket-6.x. In short, the following things changed compared to the 1.0 module: - CDI 1.1 is required - Conversation propagation is always done via a cid query parameter, as specified in JSR-346, and is portable - No

Re: New wicket-cdi-1.1 implementation in 6.x

specifies that conversations are propagated via the cid query parameter. So, as long as this parameter is set correctly, there's no need to manually (de)activate the conversational context. Emond On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:18 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: Hi all

Re: New wicket-cdi-1.1 implementation in 6.x

On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 10:30 PM, John Sarman johnsar...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Nov 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.comwrote: Also how you activating the ConversationalContext? I see the weld-impl was removed, is there a generic way of doing this? CDI

Re: Backport WebSocketResource to wicket-6.x

Breaking api in experimental modules is no problem to me, they are versioned 0.x with a reason :) Emond On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 5:13 PM, Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.orgwrote: Hi, With https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-5423 I've implemented IResource based WebSocket

Re: CDI examples are broken in master branch

branch (v.7). There is no such problem in wicket-6.x. I guess something is not merged to master ... I'll check it tomorrow if someone else don't do it earlier. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: Hi Martin, Is this on wicket 6 or 7? I'm

Re: CDI examples are broken in master branch

, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.com wrote: wicket-cdi-1.1 is in a terrible state at the moment. Both in master and wicket-6.x. Perhaps we should remove or disable it for now in master and update it once I've done my work on 6.x. On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 3:39 PM, Martin Grigorov mgrigo

Re: CDI examples are broken in master branch

groupIdorg.jboss.seam.conversation/groupId artifactIdseam-conversation-weld/artifactId version3.0.0.Final/version /dependency Have not tested this. John On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 2:52 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega

Re: Future of wicket-cdi

I'll reply to several mails at once. On Wednesday 13 November 2013 13:31:39 Igor Vaynberg wrote: i am not a big fan of having the application instance managed. what is the value of this? it can be injected using noncontextual just like everything else... Having the application and its

Re: remove recently merged cdi 1.1 from 6.x

would you replace it with? On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 11:32 PM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: the point on INonContextualManager was to internalize NonContextual - in case cdi implementation

Future of wicket-cdi

Hi all, You probably noticed the the flood of emails regarding wicket-cdi these last few days, which IMHO is good, because it means wicket-cdi is alive. However, the current status is that the current (old) implementation of wicket-cdi works badly with CDI 1.1 and the experimental (new) version

Re: remove recently merged cdi 1.1 from 6.x

the original Cdi-1.0, initialization technique, to support the backwards compatibility. John On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.comwrote: In wicket 6, this code also still is in experimental. The reason I ported it to Wicket 6, was to actually use

Re: WICKET-4997

Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi Emond, I guess you will apply the changes in master branch as well ? On Sat, Nov 9, 2013 at 11:46 PM, Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.orgwrote: Go ahead. On Fri, Nov 8, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: Hi, 2

Re: remove recently merged cdi 1.1 from 6.x

, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: Hi John, I've just merged the pull request in the wicket-6.x branch (still under experimental). The version still is 0.2-SNAPSHOT, as the versions are automatically increased on release. The reason I've merged the pull

Re: remove recently merged cdi 1.1 from 6.x

at 8:00 AM, John Sarman johnsar...@gmail.com wrote: It is not a forced requirement, just an option for full cdi injection. On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 3:50 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: Hi John, I've just merged the pull request in the wicket-6.x branch

Re: remove recently merged cdi 1.1 from 6.x

is because it is accessed in an ApplicationScoped class. ApplicationScoped != Wickets Application scope. On Mon, Nov 11, 2013 at 8:26 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: You are right, InitialContext.lookup was returning null. I've fixed it by falling back

Re: remove recently merged cdi 1.1 from 6.x

In wicket 6, this code also still is in experimental. The reason I ported it to Wicket 6, was to actually use it. wicket-cdi (the old module), is usable with 1.1, but not very optimal. One of the main problems with the old implementation is the amount of InjectionTargets created. The annoying

WICKET-4997

Hi, 2 weeks ago, we decided to merge WICKET-4997 into master first, and into wicket-6.x after the 6.12 release. As 6.12 was released this week, I would like to go forward and merge the branch into 6.x. Any objections? Best regards, Emond

Re: What happened with WICKET-4997?

Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: On Monday 28 October 2013 10:35:26 Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi, On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 10:17 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Bernard, I was not totally convinced of the solution, so I started a thread

Re: [4/4] git commit: WICKET-4997: render bookmarkable urls for bookmarkable pages (not stateless)

On Thursday 22 August 2013 10:43:57 Martin Grigorov wrote: On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@gmail.com wrote: For Wicket 7, we might want to take a look at the PageParameters and mounts because they hold several caveats. The most important

Re: [4/4] git commit: WICKET-4997: render bookmarkable urls for bookmarkable pages (not stateless)

: 7d8313f Author: Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl Authored: Mon Aug 19 11:07:41 2013 +0200 Committer: Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl Committed: Mon Aug 19 11:10:02 2013 +0200 -- .../main/java/org

Re: [4/4] git commit: WICKET-4997: render bookmarkable urls for bookmarkable pages (not stateless)

On Monday 19 August 2013 17:32:45 Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi Emond, I think this change is OK. Maybe we can improve it a bit by using Application.get().getPageSettings(). getRecreateMountedPagesAfterExpiry() in the checks above ? With the new check as you can see the produced urls contain

Re: [4/4] git commit: WICKET-4997: render bookmarkable urls for bookmarkable pages (not stateless)

) { ... } } what url will i get now when i say urlFor(new EditCustomerPage(customerModel)) ? -igor On Tue, Aug 20, 2013 at 5:39 AM, Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: On Monday 19 August 2013 17:32:45 Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi Emond, I think this change is OK

Re: [VOTE] Accept the Wicket Free Guide as a part of Apache Wicket

+1 to accept the Wicket Free Guide On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:14 PM, cmen...@wicketbuch.de wrote: [X] Yes, accept the Wicket Free Guide to incorporate into our project [ ] No, don't accept the Wicket Free Guide

<    1   2   3   4   >