ti 11. lokak. 2022 klo 10.15 Korbinian Bachl (korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de)
kirjoitti:
> Hello Martin,
>
> thanks for the advise and I looked at it, however, I am not sure how to
> solve my original idea here.
>
> I can swallow any error thats RuntimeException in onException in
> IRequestCycleListener, but this leads not to the rest of the page magically
> working, does it?
>
> I mean I can add a new RequestCycleListener with
>
> @Override
> public IRequestHandler onException(RequestCycle cycle, Exception ex) {
> ..
>
> if(ex instanceof RuntimeException) {
> //swallow it
> return null;
> }
>
>
> in it. But as soon as we got a e.g.:
>
> throw new RuntimeException("test");
>
> anywhere in the constructor/onInit of any component the error is again
> 500, with
> ERROR [org.apache.wicket.DefaultExceptionMapper] Unexpected error occurred
> java.lang.RuntimeException: test
> [...]
>
> behind it.
>
> My idea is that the component - and only that single component - that
> fails gets "blanked" out as it is not existing while the rest of the page
> would work regular.
It is your application so you must know/design how to recover from the
error. You either re-render the same page or redirect the user to a
suitable error page.
**
Martin
>
>
>
> Or did I missunderstand anything here?
>
> Best,
>
> KB
>
>
>
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> > Von: "Martin Terra"
> > An: "dev" <dev@wicket.apache.org>
> > Gesendet: Montag, 10. Oktober 2022 10:03:34
> > Betreff: Re: an idea: wicket-resilient mode?
>
> > It has evolved a bit:
> >
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/WICKET/Migration+to+Wicket+1.5#MigrationtoWicket1.5-RequestCycle
> >
> > **
> > Martin
> >
> > ma 10. lokak. 2022 klo 10.11 Martin Terra (
> martin.te...@koodaripalvelut.com)
> > kirjoitti:
> >
> >> Yes. You can override runtime handling yourself @
> >> RequestCycle.onRuntimeException (at least used to be with such name)
> >>
> >> In production it is recommended to do so as you best see fit.
> >>
> >> **
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> ma 10. lokak. 2022 klo 9.45 Korbinian Bachl (
> >> korbinian.ba...@whiskyworld.de) kirjoitti:
> >>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> we use wicket for many years now and so far it is a great framework to
> >>> use. One thing that however seems still a bit of a problem is the way
> >>> wicket handles (runtime) errors.
> >>> If you look at a page then the content is often composed of 100's of
> >>> panels and components.
> >>> As long as every single component is working all is fine... but if
> just 1
> >>> of the many 100 components has any kind of runtime-errors it leads to
> a 500
> >>> server error.
> >>> So I wondered: what stops us from letting wicket have a "resilient
> mode"?
> >>> - A mode where an runtime error in any component doesnt lead to the
> error
> >>> beeing done as a 500 but instead only let this single component/panel
> >>> silently fail (by not outputting it - as if it would be
> .visible(false))
> >>> and do this gracefully in the background?
> >>> While wicket doing error-logging in the background?
> >>> All beeing done by having a setting to let wicket be
> gracefully/resilient
> >>> in deploymode?
> >>>
> >>> What do you think about this approach?
> >>>
> >>> Best,
> >>>
> >>> Korbinian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
>
