Doesn't it make more sense to override WebPage's setHeaders(WebResponse)
method? You get the response as a param instead of pulling it from the request
cycle and the method name is just right.
_
From: Richard Nichols [mailto:r...@visural.com]
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Sent: Thu, 23
Why not use a password field to keep the value hidden and SSL to make sure
there are no man in the middle attacks. Seems like you are making it too hard?
- Original Message -
From: mzem...@osc.state.ny.us
To:
users@wicket.apache.org
Sent: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 15:00:55 -0400
Subject:
Encrypt
Yeah, that's been wrong for a really long time, maybe always. Whenever I point
coworkers to that class I tell them to ignore that comment. Just checked the
code for AjaxButton, and there is no form.add(this) call anywhere.
Craig
- Original Message -
From: Chris Colman
You're right James, I failed to mention that my approach will not work for
stateless pages. A stateful URL is needed to identify the previous page
instance. Regarding Firefox's lack of server trip on back button, this is what
I was getting at with the cache header stuff I mentioned. The
If the javascript will change often then it's probably best to include it
directly into the head of the page, otherwise it's just another HTTP request
that probably won't be cachable. So to put something in the head, you can
try a StringHeaderContributor or implement IHeaderContributor.
If
Hello,
This is more a JavaScript problem than wicket, but I'm encountering it in the
context of a wicket component so maybe others have had the same issue and can
offer some guidance. I'm having some trouble with Wicket.AutoComplete's
getOffsetParentZIndex definition, in IE 7 it's returning 0
Not familiar with this approach, sounds interesting. So the page would return
null from IMarkupCacheKeyProvider method when it wants to force a reload of the
of the content, which then calls the IMarkupResourceStreamProvider to get the
content? Does the page have to register itself with the
Last time I checked, and it's been a while, the setOutputMarkupPlaceholderTag
behavior was to create an element like div id='wicketId' style='not visible'
/ and then when you set it back to visible you end up with the proper html:
div id='wicketId'content here/div. I don't know anything about
OK so I just read the entire thread now I see that you are adding the
behavior to the new panel as well. So you can probably ignore my last post.
-Original Message-
From: Craig McIlwee [mailto:craig.mcil...@openroadsconsulting.com]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 9:17 AM
To: users
I don't see how this can work reliably when there is more than 1 user, AFAIK
wicket has no synchronization in place that prevents 2 pages from going through
the render phase at the same time. So if one page finishes rendering and
changes the setting to false while another page has just started
I wouldn't say it's a bad practice, it just depends on how the objects are
intended to be used. If you have mutable data specific to each user that must
span several pages and shouldn't be messed with by other users than session is
a good place, like you now have for your DB. But if there are
I agree with Ernesto, I think the reasoning behind non-parameterized panels is
that panels needing a model is rare compared to panels that do not need a
model. If you need a panel with a strongly typed model then look into
FormComponentPanel, since it's a FormComponent it gets the typed model
If a FormComponent has raw input (FormComponent.hasRawInput() == true) then it
will use that value when rendering instead of its model object. I find that
pretty often (or more likely always) have to call FormComponent.clearInput()
when updating a component's model object during an ajax
Have you tried creating a properties file for the panel, Sidebar.properties?
By putting the value in your Index.properties aren't you kind of breaking
encapsulation by adding knowledge of the panel's inner workings to the page?
-Original Message-
From: Robin Sander
I heard someone saying here a few weeks ago that the 1.4.0 build had been
finalized and that the official release was waiting on some PR stuff. Just
curious what that was?
-Original Message-
From: martijn.dasho...@gmail.com [mailto:martijn.dasho...@gmail.com] On Behalf
Of Martijn
See
http://wicket.apache.org/docs/1.4/org/apache/wicket/markup/html/form/Button.html#setDefaultFormProcessing(boolean)
-Original Message-
From: carlson weber filho - Master CIM Informática
[mailto:cwe...@mastercim.com.br]
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 3:31 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
This is probably a good starting point:
http://wicket.apache.org/introduction.html
Craig
-Original Message-
From: Gerald Fernando [mailto:gerald.anto.ferna...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 8:51 AM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: what is wicket
Hello Friends,
Am Gerald,
17 matches
Mail list logo
