Status of SWARM?

Hi, I was wondering what the current status of SWARM is. Will there be a compatible version for the release of Wicket 1.4? If not (or not yet), what exactly is missing to get it working with 1.4? Thanks Carl-Eric

Re: [wicket 1.5] removing page version manager

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 14:03:05 -0700 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: can we yank ipageversionmanager and ichange out of 1.5? it has always been broken because no one implements ichange objects to keep the page state consistent. How exactly is it broken? Just that nobody uses it, or

Re: [wicket 1.5] removing page version manager

On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 23:15:56 +0200 Matej Knopp matej.kn...@gmail.com wrote: Main problem with Change is that it only can do undo. It can not do redo which is what we need when user clicks the Forward browser button. Plus wicket pages can change significantly between versions. Representing

Re: [wicket 1.5] removing page version manager

Wicket version management is concerned with components. We don't version your domain objects (unless you keep hard references to them and they get serialized with the page). If you are using models properly most of the time when you deserialize and render the page your entities get reloaded

Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...

On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:44:23 +0100 Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: I was going to propose a vote in that direction... as JDK 1.5 has been shelved... It'll be years until Java 1.6 is as common as 1.5 is now. There are many organizations who have only just completed the move

Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...

to Java 1.6. Java 1.5 adoption was pretty much everywhere when Wicket moved up to it. The same is not true for Java 1.6 at this time. Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec

Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...

problematic to keep that to a separate feature jar? Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:05:05 +0100 Johan Compagner jcompag...@gmail.com wrote

New german Wicket book (was: Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...)

Since the question about availability came up now :-) We (Roland Förther, Carl-Eric Menzel, Olaf Siefart) just released our new german-language Wicket book, called Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen in Java, published by dpunkt Verlag. I was told a few minutes ago that it was shipped

Re: wicket 1.5 build is failing because of 1.6 deps...

, it's perfectly reasonable for a relatively small team like the Wicket devs to focus on one version. I'm just pointing out things that should be known to make a conscious decision. Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel Das neue deutschsprachige Wicketbuch: Wicket: Komponentenbasierte Webanwendungen

Re: remove oninitialize/onconfigure from 1.4.x?

on what is changing between 1.4.x and 1.5, both on the surface and internally? Thanks Carl-Eric -- Carl-Eric Menzel http://www.wicketbuch.de/ On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 10:38:47 +0200 Johan Compagner jcompag...@gmail.com wrote: we (servoy) dont care much about those changes, they can be left in (we

Re: remove oninitialize/onconfigure from 1.4.x?

Great, thanks! On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 14:55:06 +0200 Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: https://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/migration-to-wicket-15.html On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 2:38 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel cmen...@wicketbuch.dewrote: Definitely +1 from me for keeping these methods in 1.4

Re: JRebel and wicket

On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 13:52:32 +0100 Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: Now we could ask folks to use addOrReplace() instead of add(), or we could relax the multi add restriction to alleviate this problem. I wouldn't be against relaxing add() and deprecating addOrReplace().

Introduce Maven Toolchains?

Hi, Trying to compile Wicket 1.4.13 recently, I ran into the problem that ResourceTestPage in wicket-threadtest failed to compile, since it tries to catch an IOException in line 87. The only line in the catch block, JPEGImageEncoder.encode(image), doesn't declare that exception, and so the

Re: [announce] Pedro Santos added to Wicket PMC / Committer

On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 22:08:10 -0500 Jeremy Thomerson jer...@wickettraining.com wrote: I'd just like to pass this on to everyone on the list. Pedro Santos has been added as a committer and PMC member for Apache Wicket. Pedro Congratulations! Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de

Re: [bug?] onInitialize() for Pages?

Hi Pedro, thanks for your reply. I find the current behavior of onInitialize in Pages *very* surprising and unexpected. It doesn't say anywhere in the documentation that using onInitialize prohibits use of constructors. Also, this only seems to affect pages. In all other components it seems to

Re: [bug?] onInitialize() for Pages?

Make onInitialize final on pages is an good idea. It is designed to children have a guaranty that the path to page exists, not to guaranty that an parent has all its children on the hierarchy already. So it is fairly more useful to children than for parent components. I just don't know if

Re: Wicket and OpenJdk

Wicket won't compile with OpenJDK6. You have to use an 1.5 JDK. I had a proposal to use Maven-Toolchains to solve this, but now I'm using a custom mvn15 script that uses JDK1.5, like Martin Grigorov (I think) suggested. Maybe the JDK1.5 requirement ought to be documented somewhere. Carl-Eric

Re: Wicket and OpenJdk

On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 19:09:55 +0100 Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: Compiling with Oracle JDK 1.6 works fine. That's interesting. I thought Oracle and OpenJDK were (at least for now) compatible. Wicket 1.4/1.5 *have* to support JDK 1.5 so we can use anything specific for JDK 1.6.

Re: Future hosting of wicket stuff

Moving to Github +1 for github. It makes distributed development so much easier. As for staying close to Apache... apache.org is only a link away. Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de

Re: [jira] Resolved: (WICKET-3218) Component#onInitialize is broken for Pages

On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 11:05:01 -0500 (EST) Igor Vaynberg (JIRA) j...@apache.org wrote: i made the decision to make the method final in page. i think this makes more sense then delaying the call because by the time the page's constructor is finished the page should be initialized, eg code like

Re: [discuss] How to resolve wicket aggregate classes / sources jar issues

On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 15:47:58 -0800 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: [+1] - Just forget about the aggregated wicket.jar and modify the wicket... Non-binding, just my opinion: [+1] - Just forget about the aggregated wicket.jar and modify the wicket... Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de

Re: final Page.onInitialize()

On Tue, 1 Feb 2011 08:52:03 -0800 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: apparently some people also use it as a post-construct callback, which sort of makes sense. for example, to call overridable factory methods, which you cannot do from the constructor. the solution is to delay all

Re: wicket conversation/workspace

I have to admit I've never quite understood the need for seam-style conversations in Wicket. Whenever I need to do some kind of defined workflow, I simply use appropriate IModel instances that get passed around between the participating components. What is the use case of using a conversation

Possible security problem with isRenderAllowed(), beforeRender(), determineVisibility() and component hierarchy.

Hi, I ran into an odd problem this week. A model fed to a ListView was calling service methods the current user wasn't allowed to use, and I was wondering how that could happen. A panel far above this ListView in the hierarchy had been secured (using Shiro annotations, but that turns out to not

Possible security problem with isRenderAllowed(), beforeRender(), determineVisibility() and component hierarchy.

Hi, I ran into an odd problem this week. A model fed to a ListView was calling service methods the current user wasn't allowed to use, and I was wondering how that could happen. A panel far above this ListView in the hierarchy had been secured (using Shiro annotations, but that turns out to not

Re: Possible security problem with isRenderAllowed(), beforeRender(), determineVisibility() and component hierarchy.

On Mon, 21 Nov 2011 09:55:44 +0100 Daniel Stoch daniel.st...@gmail.com wrote: Maybe it is a related problem to this one? http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/setRenderAllowed-called-for-invisible-components-td3790937.html It is somewhat related, but I think setRenderAllowed should be

Re: Possible security problem with isRenderAllowed(), beforeRender(), determineVisibility() and component hierarchy.

On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:39:17 -0800 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: fixed in WICKET-4256 Awesome! Is this a possible candidate to be fixed in the last 1.4 release too? Thanks Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de

Re: git and multiple workspaces with the 2 branches and 1 trunk (master?)

What you need is a separate working directory managed by the same local repo. There's a script git new-workdir in contrib/ that does that for you. See http://nuclearsquid.com/writings/git-new-workdir/ for details. Carl-Eric www.wicketbuch.de On Wed, 4 Jan 2012 16:25:32 +0100 Johan Compagner

Re: wicket 6.0 and automatic model detachment

At first glance I'm torn about this, to be honest. On the one hand, yes, not having to do that would be neat. On the other hand, that makes models even more magic to new users, and not obvious what happens. Especially if you create a model in e.g. your constructor and just reference it a method of

Re: wicket 6.0 and automatic model detachment

On Fri, 6 Apr 2012 10:48:35 -0700 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: actually all variables referenced in such manner become fields of the anonymous class and are accessible via reflection. I wasn't sure about that so before I posted my reply I did an admittedly naive test. The

WICKET-4512

Hi, could one of the old-time devs please look at https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-4512 ? martin-g and I discussed this patch and it seems to be the simplest solution for this issue. No tests break, but maybe someone knows a reason why this wouldn't be good. Thanks Carl-Eric

Re: Carl-Eric Menzel is now part of the Wicket team!

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:55:33 +0200 Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: Carl-Eric Menzel has been invited to join the Wicket team. Please welcome Carl-Eric! Yay! Thanks everyone! :-) Carl-Eric

Re: [Vote] Release Apache Wicket 1.5.6 (build 2)

+1 for 1.5.6. Tested build and my (small) training application, so at least all the central parts work. Our main production app isn't migrated yet so I can't test it yet. I agree with Dan's assessment if WICKET-4525, that doesn't seem to be a bug. Carl-Eric On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 23:41:37 +0200

Re: Form and button submit order

it is clearer - the only thing that still bugs me is that the extension interface for the new methods (so far I'm calling it IBeforeAndAfterFormSubmitter extends IFormSubmitter) is not *that* nice. It's only for 1.5 compatibility though and won't show up in 6. On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel

Re: [Vote] 6.0.0 -beta3 or RC1 ?

+1 for beta3 in a few days. I'd like to get my cleanup of ResourceStreamLocator in before we freeze the API. I'm not sure yet whether I'll have a breaking change (possibly changing getResourceFinder() in Application to return a list rather than just a single one). Carl-Eric On Mon, 25 Jun 2012

Re: [Vote] Release Apache Wicket 1.5.8

+1 Built and tested our project's main application, seems to work fine. Carl-Eric

Re: [VOTE] Release Wicket 6.0.0 final

+1 I don't have anything major with 6.0 yet so I gave my training application a quickdirty port to 6.0 from 1.5. Everything seems to work fine after a few adjustments. On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 11:27:10 +0200 Emond Papegaaij emond.papega...@topicus.nl wrote: +1 Checked: - tag (with

[VOTE] Release Wicket 1.4.21

It's time to mop up the last remaining changes in 1.4.x so we can finally close that branch and concentrate on 1.5 and 6.0. Please check the following source release and then vote: - branch build/wicket-1.4.21 - source tarball

Apache Wicket 1.4.21 is released

This is 21st release of the Wicket 1.4.x series. This is also the last release of the 1.4.x series, rounding up the remaining bugfixes. No further releases will happen in this branch. Git tag: release/wicket-1.4.21 Changelog:

[CVE-2012-3373] Apache Wicket XSS vulnerability via manipulated URL parameter

Severity: Important Vendor: The Apache Software Foundation Versions Affected: Apache Wicket 1.4.x and 1.5.x Description: https://wicket.apache.org/2012/09/06/cve-2012-3373.html It is possible to inject JavaScript statements into an ajax link by adding an encoded null byte to a URL pointing to a

Re: Releasing in a semver world (= 6.x)

+1 for B as well. We also need to think about how we will actually *do* the branching, and especially the merging. So far what I've seen were three totally separate branches with only cherry-picking going in between them. In my opinion, that's not a very good way to use git, which is far more

Re: Eclipse settings

+1 Sounds nifty. I'll have to steal that for my projects once I see how it works :-) Carl-Eric On Tue, 25 Sep 2012 15:37:27 +0200 Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: I'm not sure who is using eclipse or some other IDE, but currently I don't have the proper formatting settings

Re: Eclipse settings

100 is maybe a bit too small, but I don't think we should go higher than 120. I like having relatively short lines (same reason why newspapers print in columns, easier for the eyes), and also that way I can have several other views open next to the editor. Carl-Eric *let the formatting flame

Re: Make attribute modifier a temporary behavior?

On Thu, 27 Sep 2012 11:28:17 +0200 Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: I encounter the following code quite often in our company's codebase: @Override protected void onBeforeRender() { add(AttributeModifier.replace(class, someCondition ? someValue : someOtherValue)); }

Re: [ANN] wicketstuff-lazymodel

On Tue, 19 Feb 2013 09:17:55 +0100 Sven Meier s...@meiers.net wrote: I don't see how 'B' can have method #bind(IModel) Correct, I fixed the example to declare B as LazyModelB. I also saw performance tests which verify that LazyModel is at least twice faster than PropertyModel. Not

Re: Michael Mosmann is a committer and PMC member!

On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 11:51:15 +0200 Martijn Dashorst martijn.dasho...@gmail.com wrote: Please welcome Michael Mosmann as our newest addition to the Wicket team! Michael has been a long time contributor to Wicket, and even wrote a book on the subject. His day to day work keeps him busy with

Re: [VOTE] Accept the Wicket Free Guide as a part of Apache Wicket

I think it would help to have a neutral (i.e. Apache) host for the documentation if you want to have more contributors. I'm pretty sure many would be reluctant to contribute to something that is then presented as From this company that I don't actually work for. To my untrained eye the legal

Re: RFC-0001: Deprecating PageParameters for Wicket 7 (was Re: [4/4] git commit: WICKET-4997)

I haven't had time to read the proposal in its entirety yet, so I just skimmed it. My first impression is pretty good. There are of course some things still missing, such as programmatically changing page parameters to update the displayed URL in the browser, and centralized mounting. I'm not

Re: Broadcast.EXACT with Behavior

+1 On Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:30:42 -0700 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: yep -igor On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: that is: just notify the component and all its behaviors? On Sep 4, 2013 6:53 PM, Igor Vaynberg

Re: Passing Component or Class to IAuthorizationStrategy#isInstantiationAuthorized()

Thanks Igor for making my point much better than I did. I agree 100%. Carl-Eric On Fri, 20 Dec 2013 08:14:27 -0800 Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote: this is a security check, so the whole idea is that it is ran before any of the user's code in the constructor which may have

Re: [2/2] git commit: WICKET-5350 adjust components' wildcards

On Mon, 28 Jul 2014 12:12:21 +0300 Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: - protected void onSelectionChanged(final Collection? extends T newSelection) + protected void onSelectionChanged(final CollectionT newSelection) Should the application be allowed to add new

Re: Add onAddToPage() to Component

. Martin Grigorov Wicket Training and Consulting https://twitter.com/mtgrigorov On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel cmen...@wicketbuch.de wrote: On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 11:49:51 +0200 Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: Hi, I still find it confusing :-/ 1

Re: Add onAddToPage() to Component

On Mon, 18 Aug 2014 13:30:03 +0200 Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: I don't like the whole idea of re-adding component. Wizard is the only component in Wicket distro which fails the org.apache.wicket.core.util.objects.checker.OrphanComponentChecker. I think only the data (i.e. the

Re: Add onAddToPage() to Component

On Wed, 20 Aug 2014 15:26:45 +0300 Martin Grigorov mgrigo...@apache.org wrote: Carl-Eric, could you please re-format the related classes in wicket-6.x branch so all noise like https://github.com/apache/wicket/compare/wicket-6.x...WICKET-5677#diff-bfa8bce2a5e14af19e42011a5e2d4c68L4380

Re: Add onAddToPage() to Component

I've applied the changes you suggested, they seem to work nicely. Only in the WICKET-5677 branch based on 6.x so far, I'll cherry-pick it to master once we agree that we can integrate this. Carl-Eric On Thu, 21 Aug 2014 23:30:45 +0200 Carl-Eric Menzel cmen...@wicketbuch.de wrote: On Wed, 20

Re: [discuss] Ability to not submitting a nested form

I added it, yes. I don't see any public references to it, and I can't think of any uses for it either. Protected should be fine, as far as I can tell. It was probably just an oversight to make it public in the first place. Carl-Eric On Mon, 20 Apr 2015 15:53:23 +0300 Martin Grigorov

Re: Throw exception when setOutputMarkupId() on non-renderable component

+1 for that. On Wed, 17 Aug 2016 14:59:03 +0700 Maxim Solodovnik wrote: > +1 for "throw an exception in DEV mode and log a WARN in PROD mode" > > On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Martin Grigorov > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > What do you think on

Re: Security Check of Mozilla / Wicket implementation

I think it would be a good idea to have something like this as an option in Wicket. Something to turn on with a one-liner for the application. There are a bunch of these headers that are useful, plus I recently came across this: https://dev.to/ben/the-targetblank-vulnerability-by-example Should

Re: Security Check of Mozilla / Wicket implementation

curity-Policy" to > allow more domains } > }); > } > > The result: >> A- << (because of redirection settings of tomcat - I > was not able to change them that fast) > > To get A just enable a server redirect like mentioned here: > > https:/

Re: [VOTE] Proposal to remove IDetachable from IModel hierarchy

[X] No, keep IModel detachable I can see Pedro's point. A Model really is only something that can get and set. But detaching is such an important part of the lifecycle of many Wicket things (including Models) that I think it is an acceptable tradeoff in clarity to have IModel extend IDetachable.

Re: Ajax Form submission and method mismatch

, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > Hi, > > Maybe I'm wrong but for AJAX only logged in user could get that > REQUEST to> work because it is page relative. Or am I completely wrong? > > On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > <cmen...@wicketbuch.de>>

Re: Ajax Form submission and method mismatch

(submitter). On Fri, Feb 2, 2018, at 15:39, Ernesto Reinaldo Barreiro wrote: > Ok. But does that posses a real security issue? i.e not logged used > triggering a click on "that" button that does not exists for them? > > On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 3:36 PM, Carl-Eric Menzel > <c

Re: Ajax Form submission and method mismatch

wrote: Hi Carl-Eric, WICKET-4107 was specifically about preventing GET request on stateless forms. Why not do something similar for Ajax behaviors? Have fun Sven Am 01.02.2018 um 22:45 schrieb Carl-Eric Menzel: Hi, I've just encountered an interesting oddity. For a normal form submission

Ajax Form submission and method mismatch

Hi, I've just encountered an interesting oddity. For a normal form submission, there is Form#onMethodMismatch where I can decide what should happen if somebody calls the form's URL with a GET request rather than the usual POST. At least in 6.x and 7.x this is called from onFormSubmitted() -

Re: [ANNOUNCE] New Committer - Thomas Heigl

Welcome aboard, Thomas! On Fri, 22 May 2020 21:08:09 +0200 Andrea Del Bene wrote: > The Apache Wicket team is happy to announce that Thomas Heigl has > been voted in as a committer on Apache Wicket and also as a PMC > member of the project! Thomas is an active member of the Wicket > community