have you seen @RequireHttps in 1.4? it is a pita, but its doable. -igor
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM, Douglas Ferguson<doug...@douglasferguson.us> wrote: > I agree that this area could benefit from a redesign. > > I specifically found it difficult when writing a RequestHandler that would > redirect request from ssl to non-ssl depending no the page type. > > I.E. Login is redirected to HTTPS, then regular page redirects you back to > HTTP > > > D/ > > > On 8/20/09 3:46 PM, "Igor Vaynberg" <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > the intention is to drastically simply the process of going from a url > to a page. > > right now we have the filter->requestcycle->processor->coding > strategy->target->page. everything between the filter and the page is > very complicated. we would like to clean it up and simplify it. > > our url handling is a mess. it is spread all over the aforementioned > objects - encoding, decoding, parameter resolving, relative path > calculations, context path calculations, etc, etc. we would like to > create a value object to represent the url, and centralize all that > logic inside. > > we also intend to make it simpler to create custom coding strategies, > as well as mount non-page-related handlers onto urls. > > further, a stretch goal would be to unify the handling of resources > with this scheme. currently resources are handled via SharedResources > and are completely separate from the normal process. its more stuff to > learn and to understand for users, hopefully we can rebuild resources > to work via the same process as everything else - thus the > non-page-related handlers mentioned above. > > these are all rough ideas, we havent really talked much about them but > prototyped some code to see what this can potentially look like. > > -igor > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM, Martijn > Dashorst<martijn.dasho...@gmail.com> wrote: >> It would be nice to get some guidance towards the goals, and >> architecture of your new design before we commit to it. Just looking >> at the code doesn't reveal intention or the bigger picture. >> >> Martijn >> >> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matej Knopp<matej.kn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> actually the changes in 1.5 might be quite drastic as far as wicket >>> internals are concerned. I've already rewritten the request cycle, url >>> processing and page management. I'm not sure how much of it will >>> actually get to trunk though. You can take a look at the code here if >>> you are interested: >>> >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket/sandbox/knopp/experimental/wicket-ng/ >>> >>> Note that this is pretty much a prototype. While the request cycle, >>> url processing and page management work, the rest of wicket is more or >>> less mocked. >>> >>> Also right now it only covers regular request processing. I don't know >>> enough about portlets to build in portlet support. I'm not even sure >>> the architecture is flexible enough to allow seamless portlet >>> integration. That said, it would be much probably lot easier and >>> cleaner to refactor this code than to add add portlets to existing >>> wicket trunk - which always feel like a hack to me. >>> >>> -Matej >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Antony Stubbs<antony.stu...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> There us already a working patch since early this year. I just need to >>>> update it to trunk which shouldn't be a big deal. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Antony Stubbs >>>> >>>> website: sharca.com >>>> >>>> On 20/08/2009, at 7:58 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> come up with a proposal we can discuss. when we hash out the idea then >>>>> come up with a patch. >>>>> >>>>> proposal==patch is fine as far as you dont mind refactoring as we iterate. >>>>> >>>>> -igor >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Antony Stubbs<antony.stu...@gmail.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Apologies if this is known, but is there anywhere noted the plan for 1.5? >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, I'd like to look back at the portal events work I did, and try and >>>>>> get >>>>>> that into 1.5. What would be the process for doing so? In terms of making >>>>>> a >>>>>> branch, or just re-patching, or do I just need to get the final OK from >>>>>> Ate? >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers, >>>>>> Antony Stubbs, >>>>>> >>>>>> sharca.com >>>>>> >>>>>> On 20/08/2009, at 5:10 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Wicket 1.4.x has been branched and now lives in >>>>>>> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/wicket/branches/wicket-1.4.x >>>>>>> Trunk is now what will become 1.5.0. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Trunk may be broken in the early days of development and contain a lot >>>>>>> of API breaks, so if you are following bleeding edge you may want to >>>>>>> do so on the 1.4.x branch for a while. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -igor >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org >>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com >> Apache Wicket 1.4 increases type safety for web applications >> Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.4.0 >> > >
