[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6159?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
 ]

Martin Grigorov updated WICKET-6159:
------------------------------------
    Priority: Minor  (was: Major)

> Improve compatibility with non-Wicket Ajax in ServletWebRequest
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: WICKET-6159
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-6159
>             Project: Wicket
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: wicket
>    Affects Versions: 7.3.0
>            Reporter: Thorsten Schöning
>            Priority: Minor
>         Attachments: WICKET-6159.patch
>
>
> I have a legacy web app which uses some pieces of Wicket and plain jQuery to 
> do some Ajax, but without any Wicket specific JS. The glue between both is 
> simply using AjaxBehavior to register some callbacks and that works fine.
> The problem I have currently is that Wicket thinks in some places that Ajax 
> always means using Wicket JS as well and checks for special headers. One such 
> place is WebRequest.isAjax, which is used e.g. to determine if a special 
> error handler should be invoked, which it should in my case so I 
> reimplemented isAjax.
> Another problem is that ServletWebRequest.getClientUrl makes the same 
> assumptions and throws exceptions if needed headers are missing. But throwing 
> those exceptions is unnecessary in my case, because the non-Ajax behavior of 
> that method simply works.
> So I would suggest enhancing WebRequest to provide isAjax and some kind of 
> isWicketAjax to distinguish both situations from each other. getClientUrl 
> could than simply take isWicketAjax into account for its special behavior and 
> use the "non-Ajax" approach like it did before else.
> Currently I can achieve this only with a messy hack in my implementation of 
> WebRequest.isAjax, which returns false if called from getClientUrl. Instead, 
> the mentioned distinction should be of general use for all applications 
> dealing with Wicket and non-Wicket parts.
> Thanks for consideration!
> There's a discussion on the mailing list as well:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/wicket-users/201605.mbox/<554443622.20160503154911%40am-soft.de>



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to