You'd have to rewrite the guts of SerializableChecker a bit, e.g. to
send a message to observers rather than just throwing a
WicketNotSerializableException. A default observer can throw that for
instance, but you could couple other observers, for instance one that
calls addError. One problem I expect is that I think these exceptions
are not necessarily thrown in the same thread , in which case this
wouldn't be very helpful. Unless you add flash messages (through the
session, will be displayed next request regardless of the page), but I
think that would be confusing rather than helpful.

I guess if you rewrite enough you can always do this check in the same
request, in which case displaying in a bar would be neat. Probably
best to write that from scratch then (well reusing the checker, but do
the serializing check e.g. at the end of a request cycle.

Eelco

On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 10:42 AM, Jeremy Thomerson
<[email protected]> wrote:
> The debug bar that I am working on now can have someone call
> addError("MESSAGE") on it, and it will change to a red background color.
> When I'm finished, it will also display the errors in an overlay.
>
> I would like the SerializableChecker to be able to signify that there is an
> error on the debug bar.  But I'm not familiar enough with the serialization
> guts to start digging around in there just before a (possibly) final release
> candidate.  So, what suggestions do you have as to how I can accomplish
> this?  Basically, I see the following two options thus far:
>
>   1.  when the SerializableChecker runs, if it encounters an error, it
>   sticks the error somewhere that is available to the debug bar contributor
>      1. problem I see: this is probably run way too late
>      2. another problem: possibly introduces tight coupling
>      2. the debug bar contributor somehow triggers serialization early or
>   mimics serialization to see if it is indeed serializable
>      1. problem: is serializing this early (during render) even valid?
>      probably not
>      2. problem: serialization check would be done an extra time.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> --
> Jeremy Thomerson
> http://www.wickettraining.com
>

Reply via email to