e don't use WicketTester at all).
> >
> > What kind of patch do you have?
> >
> > -Roberto
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr Mean wrote:
> > >
> > > Are you talking about test behavior or real life app behavior?
>
Maurice
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Strange-thing-in-Application-constructor-tp15786017p16001746.html
>
>
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Strange-thing-in-Application-constructor-tp15786017p16001746.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
F
>> not.
> > >> I've understood now that I have no way to control that, everytime a
> user
> > >> opens a page in a wicket app a new Session is created just for
> checking
> > >> if
> > >> that user can instantiate components, regardless of we
d just for checking
> >> if
> >> that user can instantiate components, regardless of wether the page is
> >> stateless or stateful and also if the user has never signed in the site.
> >> Is
> >> it like that?
> >>
> >>
ke that?
>>
>> -Roberto
>>
>>
>>
>> igor.vaynberg wrote:
>> >
>> > session represents a user's session, while application represents the
>> > application that users access.
>> >
>> > -igor
>> >
o if the user has never signed in the site. Is
> it like that?
>
> -Roberto
>
>
>
> igor.vaynberg wrote:
> >
> > session represents a user's session, while application represents the
> > application that users access.
> >
> > -igor
> >
>
.
>
> -igor
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Strange-thing-in-Application-constructor-tp15786017p15808987.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe,
this session
> >> */
> >> public IAuthorizationStrategy getAuthorizationStrategy()
> >> {
> >> return
> >> getApplication().getSecuritySettings().getAuthorizationStrategy();
> >> }
&g
zationStrategy();
>> }
>>
>>
>> I wonder why it has been implemented in that way. Could this statement:
>>
>> if
>>
>> (!Session.get().getAuthorizationStrategy().isInstantiationAuthorized(component.getClass()))
>>
>> be rewritten as:
>>
&
; I wonder why it has been implemented in that way. Could this statement:
> >
> > if
> >
> (!Session.get().getAuthorizationStrategy().isInstantiationAuthorized(component.getClass()))
> >
orizationStrategy();
> }
>
>
> I wonder why it has been implemented in that way. Could this statement:
>
> if
>
> (!Session.get().getAuthorizationStrategy().isInstantiationAuthorized(component.getClass()))
>
> be rewritten as:
>
> if
>
> (!getSecuritySettings().
Authorized(component.getClass()))
be rewritten as:
if
(!getSecuritySettings().getAuthorizationStrategy().isInstantiationAuthorized(component.getClass()))
??
-Roberto
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Strange-thing-in-Application-constructor-tp15786017p15786017.html
Sen
13 matches
Mail list logo
