mad typos :-)
is not a "bug deal" but not a "big deal" *lol*
Am 07.10.2009 um 09:40 schrieb Peter Ertl:
well, not a bug deal!
/image/${fullnameIncludingExtension} can be parsed easily :-)
Am 07.10.2009 um 02:14 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
erm, although we do not quiet support
/${name}.${format}/ only a full path segment can be a placeholder
for now.
-igor
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
> wrote:
svn up and see org.apache.wicket.request.mapper.mount
-igor
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Peter Ertl <pe...@gmx.org> wrote:
+1.000 for that
mount RequestHandler will allow any kind of browser output
(resources,
pages, server side redirects to external urls, etc.)
being able to access placeholders from resources will be great :-)
thinking of something like:
mount(new MountedMapper("image/${name}.${format}",
imageResourceHandler)
Am 06.10.2009 um 17:13 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
ahha, here is something we need to change. we should have a
mountedmapper that allows one to mount a requesthandler rather
then a
page. the user should not go as far as having to implement
requestablepage, there are a lot of extraneous methods there if
all
you want to do is handle the request yourself.
-igor
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Stoch <daniel.st...@gmail.com
>
wrote:
The great thing for me is that I'll be able to mounting
something that
just implements RequestablePage interface, not only a Page class
descendants (if I've read this code correctly :)). It allows to
handle
navigation more flexible and it allows to avoid creating hard to
maintain page class hierarchies.
--
Daniel
Am 07.10.2009 um 09:40 schrieb Peter Ertl:
well, not a bug deal!
/image/${fullnameIncludingExtension} can be parsed easily :-)
Am 07.10.2009 um 02:14 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
erm, although we do not quiet support
/${name}.${format}/ only a full path segment can be a placeholder
for now.
-igor
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:13 PM, Igor Vaynberg <igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
> wrote:
svn up and see org.apache.wicket.request.mapper.mount
-igor
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 5:11 PM, Peter Ertl <pe...@gmx.org> wrote:
+1.000 for that
mount RequestHandler will allow any kind of browser output
(resources,
pages, server side redirects to external urls, etc.)
being able to access placeholders from resources will be great :-)
thinking of something like:
mount(new MountedMapper("image/${name}.${format}",
imageResourceHandler)
Am 06.10.2009 um 17:13 schrieb Igor Vaynberg:
ahha, here is something we need to change. we should have a
mountedmapper that allows one to mount a requesthandler rather
then a
page. the user should not go as far as having to implement
requestablepage, there are a lot of extraneous methods there if
all
you want to do is handle the request yourself.
-igor
On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 3:08 AM, Daniel Stoch <daniel.st...@gmail.com
>
wrote:
The great thing for me is that I'll be able to mounting
something that
just implements RequestablePage interface, not only a Page class
descendants (if I've read this code correctly :)). It allows to
handle
navigation more flexible and it allows to avoid creating hard to
maintain page class hierarchies.
--
Daniel
