.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Thread-safety-of-various-Wicket-classes-tp4652977p4661123.html
Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands
?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Thread-safety-of-various-Wicket-classes-tp4652977p4661123.html
Sent from the Users forum mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail
: they have a Component
argument. This way, behaviors can be stateless...
Given that behaviors are stateless, why is it discouraged to share them?
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Thread-safety-of-various-Wicket-classes-tp4652977p4661123.html
Sent from
First of all:
You shouldn't start optimizing without having an actual problem.
I don't see a real benefit in sharing a validator between several components.
ON THE OTHER SIDE
There shouldn't be a problem using Validators across several component
instances as I am not aware of a single stateful
Hi,
Access to pages in Wicket is synchronized, i.e. only one thread can
manipulate the page.
So, if you use non-static member fields then there is no problem. If
you use static ones then you need to verify that they are thread safe
and can be used in such a way.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 5:07 AM,
Ok, thanks.
So I guess I should assume all classes unsafe, even if I check the code
- since that can change.
Maybe it would be worth considering committing to keeping certain class
groups thread-safe, like validators. Just an idea.
Ondra
On Tue, 2012-10-16 at 09:17 +0200, Martin Grigorov
Hi all,
for repeaters, I didn't like adding a new validators, attribute
modifiers etc for each single row.
So I create just one and pass the reference.
1) Is it ok to have just one at component instance level?
2) Is it ok to make it a static final instance at app level?
And about thread safety
