Re: dzone refcard
. -- Reza Marvan Spagnolo SW Network Engineer - Freelancer @ :: marv...@gmail.com m :: + 34 608 641 708 skype :: mrvspg
Re: [kind-of-announce] Swit 0.9.0, wicket library for graphics stuff
SUPER COOL ! :) One thing, can you adjust the vertical offset of the text inside the button ? I saw that in the button generator it is not possible. Attach my congrats to the queue ! Marvan
Re: Wicket-like JavaScript Components
Not wanting to go offtopic on the list or start a flame war I would just say to have a look to their license before doing any experiment .. To develop anything not GPL'ed you will need to purchase a commercial license for ExtJS. That is why many migrated to other JS frameworks some time ago when that project changed the licensing model I think. On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Juan Carlos Garcia M. jcgarc...@gmail.comwrote: Have you take a look at http://extjs.com/ http://extjs.com/ insom wrote: I'm working on a small project where I'm limited to using only JavaScript. I love the Wicket programming model, especially reusable components. Is anyone aware of a JavaScript framework or JavaScript techniques that would allow me to approximate Wicket components? -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-like-JavaScript-Components-tp24038056p24038240.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org -- Reza Marvan Spagnolo SW Network Engineer - Freelancer @ :: marv...@gmail.com m :: + 34 608 641 708 skype :: mrvspg
Re: newbie help with JavascriptUtils
Thank you Francisco,
I attached a behaviour to the page using the snippet you included in your
reply as a base and that worked !
I thought I could use JavascriptUtils for quickly adding js code in the
markup but that maybe worked in previous versions of wicket or it could work
in other contexts, not directly in a page.
Cheers,
Reza Marvan Spagnolo
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:56 PM, francisco treacy
francisco.tre...@gmail.com wrote:
your page should implement IHeaderContributor
or attach a behaviour to your components.
for instance (first snippet i found out there):
private static class MyJSBehavior extends AbstractBehavior {
private static final long serialVersionUID = 1L;
@Override
public void renderHead(IHeaderResponse response) {
super.renderHead(response);
response.renderOnDomReadyJavascript(alert('test'););
}
}
this is widely documented so you should be able to find better
examples, but that's the way to go
francisco
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Marvan Spagnolo marv...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
I'm trying to write some javascript in a page's markup (subclass of
another
page using wicket:child/wicket:extend mechanism)
via JavascriptUtils.writeJavascript().
The fact is it doesn't do anything at all nor I can't find anything
related
in the stack trace (the page displays well with no exceptions nor
problems
at all),
the expected javascript is simply not in the generated markup.
Before calling JavascriptUtils I add a form to the page (which works
normally as expected).
The actual code looks like:
---
public class MyPage extends MyBasePage
{
public MyPage()
{
add( new MyForm( formid ));
String js = ... javascript code here ...;
JavascriptUtils.writeJavascript( getResponse(), js);
}
}
---
Can anyone please help ? Should I maybe use something else instead of
getResponse() ?
I expected that the javascript would have been written before the
/wicket:extend closing tag, or wherever but it's not in the markup at
all.
I'm using wicket 1.3.5 on tomcat 6 and jdk 1.6.
Reza Marvan Spagnolo
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
Reza Marvan Spagnolo
SW Network Engineer - Freelancer
@ :: marv...@gmail.com
m :: + 34 622 161 746
skype :: mrvspg
Re: application scope objects in Wicket
Thank you both for your answers, Jeremy and James.
The data structure I'll use in the real case will be a collection of
objects with
one object for each of the user sessions.
That same object will be accessed only once outside the user session
and then it will be erased. There won't be 2 threads accessing the same
object in the collection
at the same time but they will access the collection object itself
concurrently (even if on separate elements).
That's why I thought about using synchronized methods only for removing,
setting and adding an element in the Collection,
I hope this will work correctly without affecting the performance of the
WebApplication object.
Don't know if I should incapsulate the collection in another object
member of WebApplication and implement the synchronized methods
inside it.
I didn't post these details because my doubt was really on the
correctness of overriding the get() method of WebApplication
to enable the use of application scope objects.
Thanks for the advice and cheers,
Marvan
James Perry wrote:
Firstly I hope you are enjoying building your first Wicket web app.
Is this application scope object immutable? What is the data structure?
IMHO, if it's immutable then it's OK to use composition within your
WebApplication by adding this object as a field within WebApplication.
I would just make it final so it never gets incorrectly pointed to a
different object once initialized.
However if this has mutable shared data, then do not use the
WebApplication's intrinsic lock as you will jeopardize its throughput
to process requests. For example:
public class FooBarApplication extends WebApplication {
private MyAppScopeObject appScopeObject;
public synchronized MyAppScopeObject getAppScopeObject(){
return appScopeObject;
}
public synchronized void setAppScopeObject(MyAppScopeObject appScopeObject) {
this.appScopeObject = appScopeObject;
}
}
Instead, use your application-scope object's intrinsic lock or use a
suitable mutex in the Java 5/6 API.
Best,
James.
On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 12:04 PM, Marvan Spagnolo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all, I'm new to Wicket and developing my first Wicket website.
I have some temporary objects created inside a users' session but needed by
a parallel process which uses them
outside the user session and I would like to avoid temporarily persisting
them into a database.
I'm looking at using application scope objects but I'm not sure how to do it
best
in Wicket.
I guess I should override the get() method of WebApplication
mimicking the pattern used for custom Session objects.
public class WicketApplication extends MyWebApplication
{
private Object applicationScopeObject;
public WicketApplication() {
setApplicationScopeObject( init value );
}
@Override
public static WicketApplication get() {
return (WicketApplication) WebApplication.get();
}
public Object getApplicationScopeObject(){
return this.applicationScopeObject;
}
public void setApplicationScopeObject( Object applicationScopeObject ){
this.applicationScopeObject = applicationScopeObject;
}
[...]
}
public class PageInsideUserSession
{
public PageInsideUserSession(){
[...]
// object has already been initialized
WicketApplication.get().setApplicationScopeObject( object );
}
}
public class PageOutsideUserSession
{
public PageOutsideUserSession(){
Object object = WicketApplication.get().getApplicationScopeObject();
[...]
}
}
In my case synchronizing the access to the application scope object should
not be needed.
Is this approach correct (and efficient) or is there a better solution ?
Should I maybe use a separate parent class (parent of WicketApplication and
child of WebApplication) for
overriding the get() method (in case the override interferes with something
else in the framework) ?
Cheers,
Marvan
--
Reza Marvan Spagnolo
SW Engineer - Freelancer
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
application scope objects in Wicket
Hi all, I'm new to Wicket and developing my first Wicket website.
I have some temporary objects created inside a users' session but needed by
a parallel process which uses them
outside the user session and I would like to avoid temporarily persisting
them into a database.
I'm looking at using application scope objects but I'm not sure how to do it
best
in Wicket.
I guess I should override the get() method of WebApplication
mimicking the pattern used for custom Session objects.
public class WicketApplication extends MyWebApplication
{
private Object applicationScopeObject;
public WicketApplication() {
setApplicationScopeObject( init value );
}
@Override
public static WicketApplication get() {
return (WicketApplication) WebApplication.get();
}
public Object getApplicationScopeObject(){
return this.applicationScopeObject;
}
public void setApplicationScopeObject( Object applicationScopeObject ){
this.applicationScopeObject = applicationScopeObject;
}
[...]
}
public class PageInsideUserSession
{
public PageInsideUserSession(){
[...]
// object has already been initialized
WicketApplication.get().setApplicationScopeObject( object );
}
}
public class PageOutsideUserSession
{
public PageOutsideUserSession(){
Object object = WicketApplication.get().getApplicationScopeObject();
[...]
}
}
In my case synchronizing the access to the application scope object should
not be needed.
Is this approach correct (and efficient) or is there a better solution ?
Should I maybe use a separate parent class (parent of WicketApplication and
child of WebApplication) for
overriding the get() method (in case the override interferes with something
else in the framework) ?
Cheers,
Marvan
--
Reza Marvan Spagnolo
SW Engineer - Freelancer
