Re: GWT vs. Wicket?

[Sergey Didenko]

Casper, for the case when you can not enforce your users to have
javascript, it's more worthwhile to compare Wicket to Tapestry5.

I'm evaluating the latter right now.

On Wed, Apr 8, 2009 at 4:11 PM, Casper Bang cas...@jbr.dk wrote:
 I was just wondering about the Wicket community's opinion of GWT. It seems
 to share many of the positive characteristics as Wicket (focus on code, not
 markup) with the major difference/benefit as I see, that is does not
 maintain any state on the server. Also, with GWT you seem to get more
 readily available components (i.e. http://extjs.com/explorer/). The bennefit
 of Wicket as I can see, is that applications potentially degrade nicer and
 the programming model hides the Ajax RPC better. Any thoughts?

 /Casper


-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

stateless AjaxFallbackLink

[Sergey Didenko]

Hi,

Is it correct that there is no stateless AjaxFallbackLink alternative?
Which can pass through parameters?

If so I would probably implement one if it's not very hard. Could you
give good advises on this? Directions, approaches and so on.

Right now I think first I have to study AjaxFallbackLink code and
study how to get rid of stateful stuff.

The second way is to reasearch how to compose StatelessLink and wicket
ajax related functionality into a dedicated component.

Regards, Sergey.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

markup inheritance: wicket:border + wicket:body VS wicket:extend + wicket:child

[Sergey Didenko]

Hi,

What are pros and cons of using wicket:border + wicket:body VS
wicket:extend + wicket:child?

Is the first case just about avoiding wicket:xxx tags in real pages?

Consider java/org/apache/wicket/examples/navomatic example, I omit
the related java code for brevity:

NavomaticBorder.html:

  wicket:border
 ... wicket:body/ ...
  /wicket:border

Page1.html:

span wicket:id = navomaticBorder
...
/span


That can be rewritten as:

BasePage.html:

...
wicket:child/
...

Page1.html:
wicket:extend
...
/wicket:extend

Do I miss anything?

Regards, Sergey.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

Re: Wicket meetup in Switzerland?

[Sergey Didenko]

As I understand there are a lot of wicket users from all around the world.

What about scheduled video podcasts?

They are much more affordable for everyone.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

Re: IoC: how to best handle non-serializable fields in wicket

[Sergey Didenko]

Hi Andreas,

Well, may be my question is silly, but:

What about making dao a local variable in your component handlers?
Then you can get rid of that serializing-deserializing of dao as a
Component member.

Does this approach have too much overhead? Does it make some things impossible?

Cheers, Sergey.

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

Re: IoC: how to best handle non-serializable fields in wicket

[Sergey Didenko]

Yes, I mean something like this, with injector initialized in WebApplication.

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 4:06 PM, Martin Grigorov mcgreg...@e-card.bg wrote:
 I have seen such code somewhere:


 public class myLDM extends LoadableDetachableModel {

 transient @SpringBean myDAO;

 public Object load() {
  InjectorHolder.getInjector().inject(this);
  return myDAO.get(...);
 }

 }

 El vie, 06-02-2009 a las 13:21 +0100, Martijn Dashorst escribió:
 How would you inject the dao then?

-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

Re: [OT] wicket users around the world

[Sergey Didenko]

Kiev, Ukraine. Just studying wicket yet.

Re: Memory consumption per session

[Sergey Didenko]

BTW, is it easy to control what wicket stores in session? May be by patching
wicket code?
P.S. Sorry if the question is lame, I have just started studying wicket and
I want to decide whether to use it in production.


  When profiling the application server, we found out that there are HTTP
  sessions that consume up to 2 MB of memory, mostly because there are very
  large ListViews with up to 1000 entries, where each entry consumes about
 2
  KB.