Re: page version and forms
Alex,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Alex Shubert wrote:
> Nope, 1.5
>
> Well, I am not quite sure that my statement is correct. while tree
> project has some kind of examples, there are no real documentation.
> Let's consieder
> http://www.mysticcoders.com/blog/autocomplete-with-an-object/ -> my
> opinion is that sometimes one may want to make an impression quickly
> looking through a short how-to instead of downloading code, trying to
This article is provided by a Wicket user.
Be a good user and write an article about something that you understand.
> assemble it (btw, your instruction doesn't work) and digging through
> the code. It works most of the time if time is not a question.
Don't hesitate to send us patches for the javadoc. Or a whole article
that we can put at http://wicket.apache.org/learn/projects/.
>
> On 22 August 2012 11:24, Sven Meier wrote:
>> Are you using wicket-tree or the new components in Wicket 6?
>>
>> Please be more specific what information you're looking for. I'll gladly
>> provide more info in javadoc or in the wiki.
>>
>> Sven
>>
>> Alex Shubert schrieb:
>>
>>>Sven while you are here:
>>>why no documentation for Tree? Nothing at all? Right now I face a
>>>problem - tree do not persist it's state (Bookmarcable links, copied
>>>from example) and I have no clue where to see.
>>>
>>>
>>>On 21 August 2012 21:38, Sven Meier wrote:
And the winner is ... Martin!
On AppEngine I still have Wicket 1.4.x running.
Sven
On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>
> The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5
> version.
> I can bet on this.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert
> wrote:
>>
>> Martin,
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
>> Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
>> '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
>
> Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
> wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
> it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
>
>> a look at event listener implementation.
>>
>> About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
>> is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
>> renders version number eager to appear.
>> The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
>> hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
>
> Most of them are actually still valid.
> There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
> to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>
>>
>> If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
>> the solution:
>
> There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
>
>> if (!isPageStateless()) {
>> visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor> Component>() {
>> @Override
>> public void component(Component component,
>> IVisit iVisit) {
>> if (!component.isStateless()) {
>> LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
>> + component.getClass().getName() + " : "
>> + component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
>>
>> // iVisit.stop(component);
>> }
>> }
>> });
>> }
>>
>> If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
>> instantiate pages with WicketTester.
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
>>> url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
>>>
>>> I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
>>> more details.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
Martin
with all my respect but their build script uses
org.apache.wicket
wicket-core
${wicket.version}
${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
1.5.0
So,
1. no stateless form
2. it is 1.5
3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
can't be compiled under 1.4
Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
time: how that example manage not to incr
Re: page version and forms
Nope, 1.5
Well, I am not quite sure that my statement is correct. while tree
project has some kind of examples, there are no real documentation.
Let's consieder
http://www.mysticcoders.com/blog/autocomplete-with-an-object/ -> my
opinion is that sometimes one may want to make an impression quickly
looking through a short how-to instead of downloading code, trying to
assemble it (btw, your instruction doesn't work) and digging through
the code. It works most of the time if time is not a question.
On 22 August 2012 11:24, Sven Meier wrote:
> Are you using wicket-tree or the new components in Wicket 6?
>
> Please be more specific what information you're looking for. I'll gladly
> provide more info in javadoc or in the wiki.
>
> Sven
>
> Alex Shubert schrieb:
>
>>Sven while you are here:
>>why no documentation for Tree? Nothing at all? Right now I face a
>>problem - tree do not persist it's state (Bookmarcable links, copied
>>from example) and I have no clue where to see.
>>
>>
>>On 21 August 2012 21:38, Sven Meier wrote:
>>> And the winner is ... Martin!
>>>
>>> On AppEngine I still have Wicket 1.4.x running.
>>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>> On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5
version.
I can bet on this.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
>
> Martin,
>
> http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
> Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
> '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
> a look at event listener implementation.
>
> About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
> is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
> renders version number eager to appear.
> The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
> hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
Most of them are actually still valid.
There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>
> If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
> the solution:
There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
> if (!isPageStateless()) {
> visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor Component>() {
> @Override
> public void component(Component component,
> IVisit iVisit) {
> if (!component.isStateless()) {
> LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
> + component.getClass().getName() + " : "
> + component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
>
> // iVisit.stop(component);
> }
> }
> });
> }
>
> If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
> instantiate pages with WicketTester.
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>
>> Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
>> url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
>>
>> I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
>> more details.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin
>>> with all my respect but their build script uses
>>>
>>>
>>> org.apache.wicket
>>> wicket-core
>>> ${wicket.version}
>>>
>>>
>>> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
>>> 1.5.0
>>>
>>> So,
>>> 1. no stateless form
>>> 2. it is 1.5
>>> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
>>> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
>>> can't be compiled under 1.4
>>>
>>> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
>>> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
>>> url on every tree node selection?
>>> thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
>
> They are using
> Form form = new Form("form");
Re: page version and forms
Are you using wicket-tree or the new components in Wicket 6?
Please be more specific what information you're looking for. I'll gladly
provide more info in javadoc or in the wiki.
Sven
Alex Shubert schrieb:
>Sven while you are here:
>why no documentation for Tree? Nothing at all? Right now I face a
>problem - tree do not persist it's state (Bookmarcable links, copied
>from example) and I have no clue where to see.
>
>
>On 21 August 2012 21:38, Sven Meier wrote:
>> And the winner is ... Martin!
>>
>> On AppEngine I still have Wicket 1.4.x running.
>>
>> Sven
>>
>>
>> On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>
>>> The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5
>>> version.
>>> I can bet on this.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
Martin,
http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
'?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
>>> wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
>>> it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
>>>
a look at event listener implementation.
About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
renders version number eager to appear.
The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
>>>
>>> Most of them are actually still valid.
>>> There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
>>> to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>>>
If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
the solution:
>>>
>>> There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
>>>
if (!isPageStateless()) {
visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor>>> Component>() {
@Override
public void component(Component component,
IVisit iVisit) {
if (!component.isStateless()) {
LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
+ component.getClass().getName() + " : "
+ component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
// iVisit.stop(component);
}
}
});
}
If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
instantiate pages with WicketTester.
On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>
> Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
> url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
>
> I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
> more details.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert
> wrote:
>>
>> Martin
>> with all my respect but their build script uses
>>
>>
>> org.apache.wicket
>> wicket-core
>> ${wicket.version}
>>
>>
>> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
>> 1.5.0
>>
>> So,
>> 1. no stateless form
>> 2. it is 1.5
>> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
>> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
>> can't be compiled under 1.4
>>
>> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
>> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
>> url on every tree node selection?
>> thanks
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>
>>> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>>>
>>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
They are using
Form form = new Form("form");
and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states
that
must be the case.
On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov
wrote:
>
> Use StatelessForm instead.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Recently I found wicket tree control
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>>
>> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page
>> contains
>> Form it
Re: page version and forms
Hi,
These components have been merged in Wicket 6.
You can see the demo at
http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples-6.0.x/tree
and the code in org.apache.wicket.extensions.markup.html.repeater.tree
package in wicket-extensions module.
The javadocs are also improved.
On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 10:10 AM, Alex Shubert wrote:
> Sven while you are here:
> why no documentation for Tree? Nothing at all? Right now I face a
> problem - tree do not persist it's state (Bookmarcable links, copied
> from example) and I have no clue where to see.
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 21:38, Sven Meier wrote:
>> And the winner is ... Martin!
>>
>> On AppEngine I still have Wicket 1.4.x running.
>>
>> Sven
>>
>>
>> On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>
>>> The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5
>>> version.
>>> I can bet on this.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
Martin,
http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
'?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
>>>
>>> Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
>>> wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
>>> it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
>>>
a look at event listener implementation.
About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
renders version number eager to appear.
The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
>>>
>>> Most of them are actually still valid.
>>> There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
>>> to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>>>
If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
the solution:
>>>
>>> There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
>>>
if (!isPageStateless()) {
visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor>>> Component>() {
@Override
public void component(Component component,
IVisit iVisit) {
if (!component.isStateless()) {
LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
+ component.getClass().getName() + " : "
+ component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
// iVisit.stop(component);
}
}
});
}
If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
instantiate pages with WicketTester.
On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>
> Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
> url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
>
> I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
> more details.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert
> wrote:
>>
>> Martin
>> with all my respect but their build script uses
>>
>>
>> org.apache.wicket
>> wicket-core
>> ${wicket.version}
>>
>>
>> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
>> 1.5.0
>>
>> So,
>> 1. no stateless form
>> 2. it is 1.5
>> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
>> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
>> can't be compiled under 1.4
>>
>> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
>> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
>> url on every tree node selection?
>> thanks
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>>
>>> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>>>
>>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
They are using
Form form = new Form("form");
and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states
that
must be the case.
On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov
wrote:
>
> Use StatelessForm instead.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
> wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> Recently I found wicket tree control
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
Re: page version and forms
Sven while you are here:
why no documentation for Tree? Nothing at all? Right now I face a
problem - tree do not persist it's state (Bookmarcable links, copied
from example) and I have no clue where to see.
On 21 August 2012 21:38, Sven Meier wrote:
> And the winner is ... Martin!
>
> On AppEngine I still have Wicket 1.4.x running.
>
> Sven
>
>
> On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>
>> The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5
>> version.
>> I can bet on this.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Martin,
>>>
>>> http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
>>> Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
>>> '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
>>
>> Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
>> wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
>> it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
>>
>>> a look at event listener implementation.
>>>
>>> About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
>>> is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
>>> renders version number eager to appear.
>>> The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
>>> hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
>>
>> Most of them are actually still valid.
>> There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
>> to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>>
>>>
>>> If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
>>> the solution:
>>
>> There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
>>
>>> if (!isPageStateless()) {
>>> visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor>> Component>() {
>>> @Override
>>> public void component(Component component,
>>> IVisit iVisit) {
>>> if (!component.isStateless()) {
>>> LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
>>> + component.getClass().getName() + " : "
>>> + component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
>>>
>>> // iVisit.stop(component);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> });
>>> }
>>>
>>> If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
>>> instantiate pages with WicketTester.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
more details.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
>
> Martin
> with all my respect but their build script uses
>
>
> org.apache.wicket
> wicket-core
> ${wicket.version}
>
>
> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
> 1.5.0
>
> So,
> 1. no stateless form
> 2. it is 1.5
> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
> can't be compiled under 1.4
>
> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
> url on every tree node selection?
> thanks
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>
>> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> They are using
>>> Form form = new Form("form");
>>>
>>> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
>>> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states
>>> that
>>> must be the case.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov
>>> wrote:
Use StatelessForm instead.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> Recently I found wicket tree control
>
> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>
> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page
> contains
> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version
> number
> in a url.
> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>
>
>
>
> --
Re: page version and forms
And the winner is ... Martin!
On AppEngine I still have Wicket 1.4.x running.
Sven
On 08/21/2012 02:59 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5 version.
I can bet on this.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
Martin,
http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
'?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
a look at event listener implementation.
About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
renders version number eager to appear.
The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
Most of them are actually still valid.
There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
the solution:
There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
if (!isPageStateless()) {
visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor() {
@Override
public void component(Component component,
IVisit iVisit) {
if (!component.isStateless()) {
LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
+ component.getClass().getName() + " : "
+ component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
// iVisit.stop(component);
}
}
});
}
If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
instantiate pages with WicketTester.
On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
more details.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
Martin
with all my respect but their build script uses
org.apache.wicket
wicket-core
${wicket.version}
${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
1.5.0
So,
1. no stateless form
2. it is 1.5
3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
can't be compiled under 1.4
Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
url on every tree node selection?
thanks
On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
They are using
Form form = new Form("form");
and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
must be the case.
On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Use StatelessForm instead.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
Hello
Recently I found wicket tree control
http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
in a url.
How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
Re: page version and forms
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
> Martin,
> does it really makes any difference? Lack of stateless navigation does
> ( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1086 )
I'm not sure what you mean by referring to this ticket. I guess you
just found out that your page is stateful because you use
PagingNavigator. I believe it is quite easy to make a stateless
version of the navigator.
Maybe the topic of Wicket 7 should be "Stateless".
> Anyway, I explained solution in my prev letter. Thanks!
>
> On 21 August 2012 16:59, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5
>> version.
>> I can bet on this.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>>> Martin,
>>> http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
>>> Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
>>> '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
>>
>> Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
>> wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
>> it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
>>
>>> a look at event listener implementation.
>>>
>>> About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
>>> is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
>>> renders version number eager to appear.
>>> The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
>>> hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
>>
>> Most of them are actually still valid.
>> There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
>> to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
>>> the solution:
>>
>> There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
>>
>>> if (!isPageStateless()) {
>>> visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor>> Component>() {
>>> @Override
>>> public void component(Component component,
>>> IVisit iVisit) {
>>> if (!component.isStateless()) {
>>> LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
>>> + component.getClass().getName() + " : "
>>> + component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
>>>
>>> // iVisit.stop(component);
>>> }
>>> }
>>> });
>>> }
>>>
>>> If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
>>> instantiate pages with WicketTester.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
more details.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
> Martin
> with all my respect but their build script uses
>
>
> org.apache.wicket
> wicket-core
> ${wicket.version}
>
>
> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
> 1.5.0
>
> So,
> 1. no stateless form
> 2. it is 1.5
> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
> can't be compiled under 1.4
>
> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
> url on every tree node selection?
> thanks
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
>> wrote:
>>> They are using
>>> Form form = new Form("form");
>>>
>>> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
>>> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
>>> must be the case.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Use StatelessForm instead.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
> Hello
>
> Recently I found wicket tree control
>
> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>
> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
> in a url.
> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
> black magic involved ( modified Mou
Re: page version and forms
Martin,
does it really makes any difference? Lack of stateless navigation does
( https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1086 )
Anyway, I explained solution in my prev letter. Thanks!
On 21 August 2012 16:59, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5
> version.
> I can bet on this.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>> Martin,
>> http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
>> Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
>> '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
>
> Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
> wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
> it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
>
>> a look at event listener implementation.
>>
>> About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
>> is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
>> renders version number eager to appear.
>> The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
>> hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
>
> Most of them are actually still valid.
> There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
> to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>
>>
>>
>> If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
>> the solution:
>
> There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
>
>> if (!isPageStateless()) {
>> visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor> Component>() {
>> @Override
>> public void component(Component component,
>> IVisit iVisit) {
>> if (!component.isStateless()) {
>> LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
>> + component.getClass().getName() + " : "
>> + component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
>>
>> // iVisit.stop(component);
>> }
>> }
>> });
>> }
>>
>> If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
>> instantiate pages with WicketTester.
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>> Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
>>> url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
>>>
>>> I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
>>> more details.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
Martin
with all my respect but their build script uses
org.apache.wicket
wicket-core
${wicket.version}
${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
1.5.0
So,
1. no stateless form
2. it is 1.5
3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
can't be compiled under 1.4
Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
url on every tree node selection?
thanks
On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>
> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
> wrote:
>> They are using
>> Form form = new Form("form");
>>
>> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
>> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
>> must be the case.
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>> Use StatelessForm instead.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
Hello
Recently I found wicket tree control
http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
in a url.
How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Grigorov
>>> jWeekend
>>> Training, Consulting, Development
Re: page version and forms
The Google Code repo contains 1.5 but the deployed app is using pre-1.5 version.
I can bet on this.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
> Martin,
> http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
> Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
> '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
Is there a reason why you don't trust me ? :-)
wicket:interface is no more used in 1.5+, unless the application adds
it explicitly. Wicket (the framework) doesn't use it anymore.
> a look at event listener implementation.
>
> About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
> is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
> renders version number eager to appear.
> The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
> hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
Most of them are actually still valid.
There are new pages labeled with "wicket15" and "wicket6" which refer
to the new features in 1.5 and 6.0 respect.
>
>
> If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
> the solution:
There is StatelessChecker in wicket-devutils for this task.
> if (!isPageStateless()) {
> visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor Component>() {
> @Override
> public void component(Component component,
> IVisit iVisit) {
> if (!component.isStateless()) {
> LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
> + component.getClass().getName() + " : "
> + component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
>
> // iVisit.stop(component);
> }
> }
> });
> }
>
> If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
> instantiate pages with WicketTester.
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
>> url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
>>
>> I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
>> more details.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>>> Martin
>>> with all my respect but their build script uses
>>>
>>>
>>> org.apache.wicket
>>> wicket-core
>>> ${wicket.version}
>>>
>>>
>>> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
>>> 1.5.0
>>>
>>> So,
>>> 1. no stateless form
>>> 2. it is 1.5
>>> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
>>> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
>>> can't be compiled under 1.4
>>>
>>> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
>>> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
>>> url on every tree node selection?
>>> thanks
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
> They are using
> Form form = new Form("form");
>
> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
> must be the case.
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> Use StatelessForm instead.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
>> wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Recently I found wicket tree control
>>>
>>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>>>
>>> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
>>> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
>>> in a url.
>>> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
>>> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
>>> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards
>>> Alexandr
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Grigorov
>> jWeekend
>> Training, Consulting, Development
>> http://jWeekend.com
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Alexandr
>
> --
Re: page version and forms
It's obvious that selection of leafs (implemented as
BookmarcableLinks) is NOT handled by Ajax.
BookmarkableFolderContent.java : 62
PageParameters parameters = new
PageParameters();
parameters.add("foo", foo.getId());
return new
BookmarkablePageLink(id, tree.getPage()
.getClass(),
parameters);
Or you can take a look at FB console and see network activity.
On 21 August 2012 16:48, Pointbreak wrote:
> The tree node selections are fully handled by ajax requests, so they
> will (obviously) never change the url of the page. Change the selection
> of e.g. the dropdown for "Content", and you will see that the url
> changes.
>
> There are ways to have forms without version/id information in the URL.
> Search this list for e.g. NoVersionMount. Such solutions do change how
> Wicket behaves with the back-button/page-refresh, since a new version of
> the page will always be returned in that case.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012, at 13:16, Alex Shubert wrote:
>> [...]
>> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
>> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
>> url on every tree node selection?
>> thanks
>> [...]
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> > The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>> >
>> > http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>> >
>> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
>> > wrote:
>> >> They are using
>> >> Form form = new Form("form");
>> >>
>> >> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
>> >> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
>> >> must be the case.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> >>> Use StatelessForm instead.
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
>> >>> wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Recently I found wicket tree control
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>>
>> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
>> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
>> in a url.
>> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
>> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
>> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Alexandr
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Martin Grigorov
>> >>> jWeekend
>> >>> Training, Consulting, Development
>> >>> http://jWeekend.com
>> >>>
>> >>> -
>> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Best regards
>> >> Alexandr
>> >>
>> >> -
>> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Martin Grigorov
>> > jWeekend
>> > Training, Consulting, Development
>> > http://jWeekend.com
>> >
>> > -
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Alexandr
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: page version and forms
The tree node selections are fully handled by ajax requests, so they
will (obviously) never change the url of the page. Change the selection
of e.g. the dropdown for "Content", and you will see that the url
changes.
There are ways to have forms without version/id information in the URL.
Search this list for e.g. NoVersionMount. Such solutions do change how
Wicket behaves with the back-button/page-refresh, since a new version of
the page will always be returned in that case.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012, at 13:16, Alex Shubert wrote:
> [...]
> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
> url on every tree node selection?
> thanks
> [...]
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> > The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
> >
> > http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
> >
> > On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
> > wrote:
> >> They are using
> >> Form form = new Form("form");
> >>
> >> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
> >> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
> >> must be the case.
> >>
> >>
> >> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> >>> Use StatelessForm instead.
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
> >>> wrote:
> Hello
>
> Recently I found wicket tree control
>
> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>
> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
> in a url.
> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Alexandr
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Martin Grigorov
> >>> jWeekend
> >>> Training, Consulting, Development
> >>> http://jWeekend.com
> >>>
> >>> -
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best regards
> >> Alexandr
> >>
> >> -
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Martin Grigorov
> > jWeekend
> > Training, Consulting, Development
> > http://jWeekend.com
> >
> > -
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Alexandr
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: page version and forms
Martin,
http://wicket-tree.googlecode.com/svn/repo/wicket-tree/wicket-tree-parent/0.5.0/wicket-tree-parent-0.5.0.pom
Again, no 1.4 at all. Not in one place. Moreover,
'?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' doesn't means 1.4 is in action. Just take
a look at event listener implementation.
About the problem: the page I gave link for is really stateless but it
is not meant to be, it just happened. If user choose any other tree
renders version number eager to appear.
The most Wicket problem right now is it's occult state. Wiki is
hopelessly outdated, most of the examples refer to 1.2.-1.3 version...
If someone wonder how to determine why his page is stateful here is
the solution:
if (!isPageStateless()) {
visitChildren(Component.class, new IVisitor() {
@Override
public void component(Component component,
IVisit iVisit) {
if (!component.isStateless()) {
LOGGER.info("Stateful component found [ "
+ component.getClass().getName() + " : "
+ component.getMarkupId() + " ]");
// iVisit.stop(component);
}
}
});
}
If in need of test detection, extract visitor to separate class and
instantiate pages with WicketTester.
On 21 August 2012 15:47, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
> url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
>
> I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
> more details.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>> Martin
>> with all my respect but their build script uses
>>
>>
>> org.apache.wicket
>> wicket-core
>> ${wicket.version}
>>
>>
>> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
>> 1.5.0
>>
>> So,
>> 1. no stateless form
>> 2. it is 1.5
>> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
>> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
>> can't be compiled under 1.4
>>
>> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
>> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
>> url on every tree node selection?
>> thanks
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>>>
>>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
They are using
Form form = new Form("form");
and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
must be the case.
On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Use StatelessForm instead.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
> wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Recently I found wicket tree control
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>>
>> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
>> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
>> in a url.
>> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
>> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
>> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Alexandr
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Grigorov
>>> jWeekend
>>> Training, Consulting, Development
>>> http://jWeekend.com
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Alexandr
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> -
Re: page version and forms
Sorry for being stubborn but having '?wicket:interface=:0:1:::' in the
url means that this is Wicket pre-1.5 ;-)
I guess Sven will join this conversation later today and explain in
more details.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
> Martin
> with all my respect but their build script uses
>
>
> org.apache.wicket
> wicket-core
> ${wicket.version}
>
>
> ${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
> 1.5.0
>
> So,
> 1. no stateless form
> 2. it is 1.5
> 3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
> http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
> can't be compiled under 1.4
>
> Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
> time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
> url on every tree node selection?
> thanks
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>>> They are using
>>> Form form = new Form("form");
>>>
>>> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
>>> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
>>> must be the case.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Use StatelessForm instead.
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
wrote:
> Hello
>
> Recently I found wicket tree control
>
> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>
> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
> in a url.
> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Alexandr
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards
>>> Alexandr
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Grigorov
>> jWeekend
>> Training, Consulting, Development
>> http://jWeekend.com
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Alexandr
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: page version and forms
Martin
with all my respect but their build script uses
org.apache.wicket
wicket-core
${wicket.version}
${wicket.version} derived from parent pom where
1.5.0
So,
1. no stateless form
2. it is 1.5
3. it's pretty easy to ensure yourself just by looking into code
http://code.google.com/p/wicket-tree/wiki/RunningExamples It even
can't be compiled under 1.4
Anyway: what does your answer has to do with my question? One more
time: how that example manage not to increase page version shown in
url on every tree node selection?
thanks
On 21 August 2012 14:39, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
>
> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>> They are using
>> Form form = new Form("form");
>>
>> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
>> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
>> must be the case.
>>
>>
>> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>>> Use StatelessForm instead.
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert
>>> wrote:
Hello
Recently I found wicket tree control
http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
in a url.
How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Grigorov
>>> jWeekend
>>> Training, Consulting, Development
>>> http://jWeekend.com
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Alexandr
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: page version and forms
The deployed examples use Wicket 1.4.
http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/?wicket:interface=:0:1:::
On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
> They are using
> Form form = new Form("form");
>
> and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
> Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
> must be the case.
>
>
> On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> Use StatelessForm instead.
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>>> Hello
>>>
>>> Recently I found wicket tree control
>>>
>>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>>>
>>> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
>>> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
>>> in a url.
>>> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
>>> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
>>> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards
>>> Alexandr
>>>
>>> -
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Martin Grigorov
>> jWeekend
>> Training, Consulting, Development
>> http://jWeekend.com
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards
> Alexandr
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Martin Grigorov
jWeekend
Training, Consulting, Development
http://jWeekend.com
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: page version and forms
They are using
Form form = new Form("form");
and still no version in url on round-trips. Also, FilterForm from
Wicket API doesn't extends StatelessForm while your answer states that
must be the case.
On 21 August 2012 14:20, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> Use StatelessForm instead.
>
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> Recently I found wicket tree control
>>
>> http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested
>>
>> and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains
>> Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number
>> in a url.
>> How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages
>> containing Form without explicit version number in url except some
>> black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper )
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Best regards
>> Alexandr
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.com
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
--
Best regards
Alexandr
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: page version and forms
Use StatelessForm instead. On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Alex Shubert wrote: > Hello > > Recently I found wicket tree control > > http://wicket-tree.appspot.com/nested > > and one there is a thing I can't understand: while the page contains > Form it looks like not versioned. I mean there are no version number > in a url. > How does it work then? Is there any clear way to build pages > containing Form without explicit version number in url except some > black magic involved ( modified MountedMapper ) > > > > > -- > Best regards > Alexandr > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org > -- Martin Grigorov jWeekend Training, Consulting, Development http://jWeekend.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
