Currently my menu setup is similar to some examples in that it uses one
"edit" template for editing existing items as well as creating new items.
Clicking on the menu link directly instantiates a fresh snippet which
instantiates a new mapper instance, while clicking an 'edit' link from the
"list" p
Hello Lift people!
I am experimenting with Lift for building a web application.
I read alot on the list on the ajax subject and I think I get more
familiar with.
I try to get a form submittet with ajax. I want an easy solution
without much
code writing. I tried the following suggestion as found h
Box is a good idea -- it can capture the parsing error etc.
Maybe the trait could go in webkit and Mapper and Record could both use it.
Would Wizard use it?
Slightly off topic, but why do validation functions take an input parameter?
How often are they defined outside of a mapper instance?
Thanks for the response Indrajit. Yes this is the same issue I had
opened 246 for and sorry for beating a dead horse.
The thing is that in most cases, you do want to container to provide
the db driver. It's bad practice to create a war file with dependence
on a specific database, let alone a spec
It could be changed, if it's thought worth it, once we are on 2.8. You need a
package level type alias (and def pointing to the factory). Change the name to
PageVar and add some deprecated aliases.
But it would be silly. Someone needed a feature--accessing a RequestVar from
ajax. So now its sema
On Dec 28, 9:11 pm, Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
> That's true in practice. The implementation of those methods however are
> equivalent to the S and SHtml versions except for the call to
> registerThisSnippet. But if Lift will sometimes remember even ordinary class
> instances as reusable snippe
On Dec 28, 2009, at 12:46 PM, Adam Warski wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>> 1) Can I have in lift a "true" request variable/snippet, that is
>>> such which has a lifetime of one request (without any ajax
>>> callbacks)? I can't use TransientRequestVar because it's private.
>>> It would be useful to com
That's true in practice. The implementation of those methods however are
equivalent to the S and SHtml versions except for the call to
registerThisSnippet. But if Lift will sometimes remember even ordinary class
instances as reusable snippets then why should the API for managing reused
snippets
-Dlog4j.configuration={file URL} ?
On Dec 28, 8:56 pm, Derek Chen-Becker wrote:
> That's probably the simplest way to do it. You can also use a system
> property (can't remember off the top of my head) to tell log4j where to get
> its props from, and then just disable Lift's config of log4j by se
That's probably the simplest way to do it. You can also use a system
property (can't remember off the top of my head) to tell log4j where to get
its props from, and then just disable Lift's config of log4j by setting
LogBoot.logSetup = () => false
in your bootstrap.
Derek
On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 a
StatefulSnippets lifetime is manually managed and may be "chained" to other
pages by using link() or redirectTo() such that the same instance is reused
for those targets.
(And StatefulSnippet extends DispatchSnippet)
alex
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 10:08 AM, Naftoli Gugenheim wrote:
> And what's t
On Dec 28, 7:46 pm, Adam Warski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> >> 1) Can I have in lift a "true" request variable/snippet, that is such
> >> which has a lifetime of one request (without any ajax callbacks)? I can't
> >> use TransientRequestVar because it's private. It would be useful to
> >> complete my
And what's the difference to a StatefulSnippet?
-
Adam Warski wrote:
Hello,
> RequestVar-s lifetime is expanded beyond the actual request, which is
> not applicable for TransientRequestVar. For instance say you have a
> page and you set some state on a Request
OK, Thank you very much!
Cheers,
Neil
On Dec 28, 11:01 pm, Derek Chen-Becker wrote:
> If you never want to show more than 5 chats, you need to move the logic for
> trimming to 5 chats into the line where you calculate the update. It looks
> like you're trying to just update the difference b
Hello,
>> 1) Can I have in lift a "true" request variable/snippet, that is such which
>> has a lifetime of one request (without any ajax callbacks)? I can't use
>> TransientRequestVar because it's private. It would be useful to complete my
>> ajax-form example (after an item is saved, a new one
On Dec 28, 7:19 pm, Adam Warski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > RequestVar-s lifetime is expanded beyond the actual request, which is
> > not applicable for TransientRequestVar. For instance say you have a
> > page and you set some state on a RequestVar ... then you render an
> > Ajax link. After the page
>
> > Yes, the article is out of date now... Lift now makes sure that multiple
> > references to a single snippet in the same request context use the same
> > instance of that snippet.
> I see, so the rationale behind using dispatch snippets is out of date also.
> Except that you save one refle
Hello,
> RequestVar-s lifetime is expanded beyond the actual request, which is
> not applicable for TransientRequestVar. For instance say you have a
> page and you set some state on a RequestVar ... then you render an
> Ajax link. After the page is rendered, when your ajax function is
> invoked, y
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 8:04 AM, Adam Warski wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > Yes, the article is out of date now... Lift now makes sure that multiple
> references to a single snippet in the same request context use the same
> instance of that snippet.
> I see, so the rationale behind using dispatch snippet
RequestVar-s lifetime is expanded beyond the actual request, which is
not applicable for TransientRequestVar. For instance say you have a
page and you set some state on a RequestVar ... then you render an
Ajax link. After the page is rendered, when your ajax function is
invoked, you RequestVar stat
Hello,
> Yes, the article is out of date now... Lift now makes sure that multiple
> references to a single snippet in the same request context use the same
> instance of that snippet.
I see, so the rationale behind using dispatch snippets is out of date also.
Except that you save one reflection
If you never want to show more than 5 chats, you need to move the logic for
trimming to 5 chats into the line where you calculate the update. It looks
like you're trying to just update the difference between the incoming
updates and your current chats.
Derek
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:47 AM, Neil.
OK, I see something really odd here. The exception is complaining about a
missing "USER_ID" column, but there's no such column in either insert
statement:
Hibernate: insert into users (firstName, lastName, username, id) values (?,
?, ?, ?)
Hibernate: insert into address (addressLineOne, city, stat
Yes, the article is out of date now... Lift now makes sure that multiple
references to a single snippet in the same request context use the same
instance of that snippet.
Reflection snippets do not have the same scope as request vars... rather, the
snippet is held in a request var.
Cheers, Tim
This was a non trivial hustle to find the cause:) ... See each Lift
function is bound to an owner. The owner can be the pageId (generated
by Lift) or the Comet ID. In this case since the function is bound
from Comet the owner is the Comet ID. Therefore when clicking on "this
doesn't (via comet acto
Hello,
on the wiki page about reflection snippets
(http://wiki.github.com/dpp/liftweb/about-snippets), it is written:
"Every time you call the reflection snippet in your markup code, a new instance
is instantiated and the appropriate method invoked"
However this doesn't seem to be true (I'm us
Joseph,
I assume your concern is same as the one that you had mentioned here:
http://github.com/dpp/liftweb/issues/246/find.
While this is a genuine case for the scenario you described, marking db
driver as 'provided' has the side effect of not being included with the
generated war (because th
IMO should be generated by the same code that
generates the form fields so that the field errors to appear nearby
the field itself. I assume you are using ProtoUser.
Looks like a bug to me.
Br's,
Marius
On Dec 28, 2:36 am, tiro wrote:
> Just discovered this issue (1.1-m8): The sign-up form wi
28 matches
Mail list logo
