[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3534?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13006497#comment-13006497
]
Igor Vaynberg commented on WICKET-3534:
---------------------------------------
i think the developer should know if they are in an ajax request or not, and
the way to test that is to check for target==null. rather then providing this
dummy target we should wrap the passed in ajaxrequesttarget in
Optional<AjaxRequestTarget> to make explicit that it can be null.
> Ajax components: provide a DummyAjaxRequestTarget instead of null if Ajax is
> not available, e.g. to onClick(AjaxRequestTarget)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: WICKET-3534
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-3534
> Project: Wicket
> Issue Type: Wish
> Components: wicket-core
> Reporter: Peter Parson
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: ajax, null, nullpointerexception
>
> It is a common pitfall not to think of AjaxRequestTarget maybe being null,
> e.g. in a Link's onClick method.
> Even if the developer has this fact in mind, it is the same piece of code
> used to avoid NullPointerExceptions or other problems arising of it.
> Wouldn't it be nice to have sort of a DummyAjaxRequestTarget? This could
> solve some common problems:
> * NullPointerException due to the passed AjaxRequestTarget being null
> * NullPointerExceptions due to AjaxRequestTarget#getPage() returning null
> there are probably more.
> Also, it would be possible to throw more distinct Exceptions in cases where
> DummyAjaxRequestTarget cannot handle method calls.
> I would love it, for better readibility and less runtime exceptions (even
> more as these runtime exceptions are only thrown under special conditions: js
> deactivated or similar)
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
