Hi,
If I want a centralized properties file for localization, where should I put
it and how should I call it?
Is it supposed to be in the same folder as my WebApplication class?
Is is supposed to have the same name as this class (with extension
properties)?
Thanks
--
Eyal Golan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
you can override tabbedpanel.newlink and return a submitlink
instead.that way the form has to be submitted/validated before tabs
can be switched.
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:51 PM, Justin Morgan - Logic Sector
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'm running into an issue with my TabbedP
Hi all,
I'm running into an issue with my TabbedPanel. Currently I have a
TabbedPanel containing two tabs. Each tab panel contains a form.
Here's my problem scenario:
1. User clicks on a tab to view it (which is really just a link
with fancy CSS styling)
2. User enters text in tha
wow. we spoil our users too much when they complain about not getting
a response after 3 hours...
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:24 PM, Michael Mehrle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone? Or are we only talking generics today? ;-)
>
> Seriously, could use a 2nd pair of eyes on this one... any in
Hi -
I have "normal" POST requests coming from an external website. I would
like to have a model object's members populated with the matching HTTP
parameter values sent in the request. I have a feeling that there is an
obvious an elegant way of having Wicket do this for me, but I can't seem
t
Anyone? Or are we only talking generics today? ;-)
Seriously, could use a 2nd pair of eyes on this one... any input
appreciated.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Mehrle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:31 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: AjaxLink not click
ah, i see. so the model for the validator overrides the message completely?
i have already built in a support for this into the core api via
IValidationError. the problem is that our validator implementations
are based around resource keys, and changing that will probably entail
api breakages whic
A "column" attribute, or any other attribute for that matter, would not
make a difference because if would all be encapsulated within the model
set on the validator (use case 6 below). Providing models to the
validators would make it a lot easier to override validation messages
because all the deve
Perhaps, but at least there would be an end to their complaining at some
point. You won't get that with the current approach.
Fabrizio Giudici wrote:
>
>
> On May 22, 2008, at 0:24 , Jonathan Locke wrote:
>
>>
>> For myself (and I think a lot of the Java community), I would have
>> preferre
I'm using Wicket 1.2, and WicketExtensions 1.2.
I have a DateTextField that is formatted with the String, "MM/dd/yy" This
field has a corresponding DatePickerSettings, but the DatePickerSettings
doesn't follow this format (it adds dates with four-digit years,
"MM/dd/".)
How can I change this
On May 22, 2008, at 0:24 , Jonathan Locke wrote:
For myself (and I think a lot of the Java community), I would have
preferred
an awesome version of generics that was easier to use, less
efficient and
broke backwards compatibility. At a deeper level, I think there was
a key
... and in t
I solved this using only javascript for now. Would have been nice to have
this in wicket but as you have already stated. How would want that?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Password-field-to-textField-and-back-tp17367668p17382822.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing l
For myself (and I think a lot of the Java community), I would have preferred
an awesome version of generics that was easier to use, less efficient and
broke backwards compatibility. At a deeper level, I think there was a key
early mistake in not planning for and providing mechanisms for breaking
b
I'm afraid my friends at Sun don't have enough influence. Type erasure seemed
like a horrible idea from the start and about 1 million people were saying
this. What can you really do to improve anything when you give input and
people just go ahead and make god-awful decisions like that one?
Johan
Can we put together a wiki page listing and categorizing/prioritizing
concrete examples of all the known generics issues in all of these threads
and discussions? I'm having a hard time getting a handle on what things are
real problems and what things are stylist objections to "verbosity" (lack of
Hi,
I use Freemarker to generate a HTML-file and spit it out to the browser
like this:
RequestCycle.get().setRequestTarget(new StringRequestTarget("text/html",
body));
With Jetty, it works great, but in Tomcat, the result is rendered as
text/plain, which I think is the default mime type fo
Yes, your right. Unfortunatelly I don't have any saying in this because the
designer has made it this way and he's word is final :(
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Password-field-to-textField-and-back-tp17367668p17378259.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list ar
Problem with this is that onSumbit() does gets called and also the required
stuff on form components does work.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/External-Form-target-tp17364277p17377912.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---
FYI - this is the HTML being generated:
Click me now.
Does not work in IE only. Any input would be appreciated.
Michael
-Original Message-
From: Michael Mehrle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 2:31 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: AjaxLink not clickable in
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:26 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> But jon, cant you not go to Sun you have still some friends there
> and give Wicket as an example so that they can improve the generics so that
> it is nicer to have in this example??? :)
+1 :)
Martijn
--
it does remove typesafety, it removed it completely (but a user doesnt know)
You can have a IModel that doesnt have an integer at all
And a user doesnt get a warning, doesnt do a cast (explicit by itself..)
thats just really bad
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
[EMAIL PROTECTE
I've got this AjaxLink:
fooLink = new AjaxLink("fooLink") {
@Override
public void
onClick(AjaxRequestTarget target) {
Boolean
selected =
Joni's proposal doesn't remove typesafety - from a 1.3 stand point, it
becomes better. There is an arcane, and rather convoluted example that
allows one to generate class cast exceptions.
Martijn
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 11:20 PM, Jonathan Locke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm jumping into this
its funny that you say that about the pages.
That Page was ungenerified in 1.4M1 and what did we get?
Complains.. Why isnt it generified an we have it?
multiply questions.. So not one but many asking that same thing.
So people do use it...
But jon, cant you not go to Sun you have still some frie
I have a DateField inside a modal and when clicking on the date icon
it's throwing a 'unknown runtime error' in IE's JavaScript console.
Works in Safari and Firefox.
Is this a commonly known problem?
Michael
I'm jumping into this conversation very late and I simply can't catch up on
this entire thread, but isn't it possible to have a non-generic build of the
generic framework for people that don't want to use generics?
Skimming this discussion, in general, I tend to agree with Eelco. A good
general a
try latest snapshot
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:07 PM, ak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I am using AutoCompleteBehavior from wicket extensions 1.3.0 and it works
> like a charm. But after upgrading to 1.3.3, I am getting a script error on
> my IE. Is there any known remedy ?
> App
Duh, that was easy. Actually what I was looking for is
component1Id.null=Choose type
component2Id.null=Choose date
but thank you very much!
2008/5/21 Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In the properties file for your page do:
> component1Id.nullValid=Choose type
> component2Id.nullValid=Choo
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:21 PM, Eelco Hillenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> so lets start a vote with a parallel discussion thread just for this.
>
> Good idea. Let's do discussion first (thread on dev?) and let's not
> rush things. How about gathering consensus of the parts we currently
> do l
Hi All,
Has anyone tried using DateTextField with DatePicker, that instead of having a
calendar image beside the DateTextField and calendar pops up when click, it
actually pops up when you click the text field itself?
Any response will be greatly appreciated!
Thanks,
Wen Tong
--
The only
Thanks to all who responded. The consensus seems to support the idea of
adding Spring to the app. Here we go!
I really appreciate the information.
Bruce.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok so we pretty much have some core people wanting to back out the
> generics support.
I hate to say it, and I kept myself on the background because I don't
want to be a pita, but I still feel the same as I did last year:
i really dont get it how people can like this..
really
if i would have a frame work that abuses it like that
For example if the collections framework of java would do things like that?
What would you all think??
This is really horrible abuse, enormous hack.
If i would encounter something like
Well, maybe it really is a hack that's too ugly. We might have two methods,
default getModel() that doesn't cast it and alternative convenience
one that does.
-Matej
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:10 PM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> class Component {
> private IModel model;
>
>
class Component {
private IModel model;
public IModel getModel() {
return (IModel) model;
}
}
I like this. Even with the possible class cast exception. Because
without generics, it doesn't leave you no other option than to cast it
to your model, which isn't
On Wed, 21 May 2008, Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> Before we do a vote I want to make sure what our alternatives are.
>
> I still like Joni's alternative. I don't think they are an
> abomination, because the /potential/ class cast exception you get is
> the same as with current 1.3. But the benefit of
yeah we need to do that then. But after that you loose the generification
completely
So the constructors are the "Documented" nothing more.
But getModel will have a warning then and getModelObject() always will
return an object.
johan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:05 PM, James Carman <[EMAIL PROT
Hello,
I am using AutoCompleteBehavior from wicket extensions 1.3.0 and it works
like a charm. But after upgrading to 1.3.3, I am getting a script error on
my IE. Is there any known remedy ?
Appreciate your thoughts.
Regards,
Andy
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/AutoComp
no i am really against that falls IModel getModel() method
that really abuses everything that generics stands for. For such a basic
thing.
this is really bad programming
If we drop it we also pretty much drop it from IModel or have warnings in
the user code.
But then drop it completely is better
How about generifying the DDC constructor and not the class itself?
public DropDownChoice(String id, IModel> choices,
IModel selectedValue);
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Martijn Dashorst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Before we do a vote I want to make sure what our alternatives are.
>
> I s
Before we do a vote I want to make sure what our alternatives are.
I still like Joni's alternative. I don't think they are an
abomination, because the /potential/ class cast exception you get is
the same as with current 1.3. But the benefit of documenting the model
parameters in DDC, LV, etc. is H
I filed a bug report: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1572
This bug is so unfathomable, there is got to be some psychic being involve.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:32 AM, TonyVegas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> *revive zombie*
>
> has any simple solution been found? I am dealing with
yep, pretty much. we will have to reapply the api-breaking fixes we
put into 1.4 to 1.3/new 1.4/whatever
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:36 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> so that pretty much means going forward with 1.3?
> drop 1.4 completely and focus on 1.5 (which is the curr
so that pretty much means going forward with 1.3?
drop 1.4 completely and focus on 1.5 (which is the current trunk) ?
Because if we drop generics from Component and IModel we dont have to have a
1.4
why should we do that?
johan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:24 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
flattery will get you everywhere
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:29 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> With the quick release cycles that Wicket goes through, that just
> seems weird to me. They should pick a version and go with it. The
> Wicket team is very good about keeping thing
With the quick release cycles that Wicket goes through, that just
seems weird to me. They should pick a version and go with it. The
Wicket team is very good about keeping things fresh. I have been very
surprised at how many releases have gone out in my brief experience
with Wicket.
On Wed, May
well, the problem is that most trunks depend on wicket snapshots
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> well, thats what we get for having virtually no entry barrier. for me
>>
ok so we pretty much have some core people wanting to back out the
generics support.
shall we start a vote? johan, gerolf and i have spent a ridiculous
amount of time trying to generify the codebase and remove all the
shitty warnings. if there is even a slight chance of this getting
backed out i d
If I read a password field asking me to type my password, where plain text
already exists, I would have 2nd thoughts on entering it.
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Jeremy Thomerson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Just an off-the-cuff guess, but have you tried adding both a textfield and
> a
> pass
In the properties file for your page do:
component1Id.nullValid=Choose type
component2Id.nullValid=Choose date
Instead of just the id you can also include the (partial) path,
working your way to the top from the component you are trying to use.
Maurice
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Martin Mak
Hello,
I think to solve the problem with wicket, you have to do some ajax stuff in
wicket.
You can have wicket to render the normal password field and code a
javascript
that swaps the two different fields "onFocus" and/or "onBlur" on the client
side.
Mathias P.W Nilsson wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
>
see IFormValidator and its implementations
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:13 AM, Tim Sarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does one validate two dates with one another on the same form? As seen
> in the snippets below, I've added the validators in the onSubmit() of the form
> which actually w
and what happens when someone wants ${label} at row {0} column {1} is
required? do we start passing in arrays, lists, or maps for imodels to
validators?
why not just do
textfield.setlabel(new model("first name at row "+row));
-igor
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Hoover, William <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:00 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> well, thats what we get for having virtually no entry barrier. for me
> branching the entire repo with every major release of wicket is much
> easier because i can do it with one command. if each project has their
> own tre
well, thats what we get for having virtually no entry barrier. for me
branching the entire repo with every major release of wicket is much
easier because i can do it with one command. if each project has their
own tree i am not going to do it. that means when there is an api
change in wicket all pr
Just an off-the-cuff guess, but have you tried adding both a textfield and a
password field, and then when the textfield (with the hint) is in focus,
hiding that and showing / focusing on the password field?
--
Jeremy Thomerson
http://www.wickettraining.com
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 1:46 PM, Math
Perhaps you can extend Form and do
onComponentTag(final ComponentTag tag) {
super.onComponentTag(tag);
tag.put("method","post");
tag.put("action",MyApplication.get().getExternalUrl());
}
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Mathias P.W Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Hummm... this is an inter
Hi,
This is sort of 2nd attempt to get some answers about SSL switching.
http://cwiki.apache.org/WICKET/how-to-switch-to-ssl-mode.html is the page I
am referring to.
The solution mentioned for wicket 1.3.x does not seem to work for form
submission. What is happening is the incoming URL has the
Hi!
In my website I have an textField for email and a password field for the
password.
The problem is that I need to print "Email here" , "Password here" in the
field so that the user can type in the fields. There are no room for labels.
I need some way of changing the password field to textfiel
Hummm... this is an interesting question. Currently in have solved it like
this.
Add a javacript to the page that changes the forms target.
function makeCallBack( URL ){
document.forms[ "orderForm" ].action = URL;
document.forms[ "orderForm" ].submit();
}
In my wicket page
target.app
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:20 AM, Daniel Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> i'm trying to implement an AutoCompleteTextField that selects from a List of
> POJOs. In my example i want to select an Artist from a Database. (see code
> at end of the mail)
>
> I ran into two problems there...
>
Hi!
Does the Wicket localizer support overriding localization for each
component? This is what I have:
add(new DropDownChoice(TYPE_PICKER, typeChoices));
add(new DropDownChoice(DATE_PICKER, dateChoices));
I would like to localize the null choice differently. Now it reads
"Choose one" for both dr
In Application.init add getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
-Original Message-
From: Lauri Lehtinen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2008 1:09 PM
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Subject: How to strip wicket tags from markup in development mode?
Hi -
Is there an e
Lauri Lehtinen schrieb:
Is there an easy way to strip the wicket tags from the produced markup
while keeping the application in development mode?
take a look at
http://wicket.apache.org/docs/wicket-1.3.2/wicket/apidocs/org/apache/wicket/settings/Settings.html#setStripWicketTags(boolean)
cu uw
in MyApplication.init():
getMarkupSettings().setStripWicketTags(true);
Gerolf
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 7:08 PM, Lauri Lehtinen <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi -
>
> Is there an easy way to strip the wicket tags from the produced markup
> while keeping the application in development mode?
>
>
Hi -
Is there an easy way to strip the wicket tags from the produced markup
while keeping the application in development mode?
I'm finding the development of a Facebook FBML app pretty painful, as
are ignored by Facebook and result in error messages. With
deployment configuration I get arou
Thanks, yes, I'd been looking at RepeatingView and hadn't noticed
ListView, which was what I really needed, as I needed to have embedded
components, which RV doesn't do but LV does...
That and:
listItem.setMarkupId(PREFIX + index);
listItem.setOutputMarkupId(true);
pretty much sorted it...
Here is another jumping-off point, that uses JPA along with @SpringBean
annotations.
http://wicket-learning-application.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/
jwcarman wrote:
>
> If you want a "jumping off point", you can start with my example
> project I used for a talk I gave on Wicket last night:
>
> ht
You could use a WebMarkupContainer and attribute modifiers. It may not be
the most elegant, but WMC works for decorating any kind of HTML tag in the
markup...
Markup:
...
Code:
WebMarkupContainer form = new WebMarkupContainer("externalForm");
form.add(new AttributeModifier("act
Bruce McGuire-2 wrote:
>
> There are aspects (no pun intended) of Spring that we like, but are unsure
> if the benefits (AOP, IOC) are worth the added effort.
>
If you use the @SpringBean annotation in your Wicket classes there's not
really any added effort at all. Everytime I add one of thes
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:05 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generics is type safety
I didn't say generics isn't type safety. But APPLYING generics for the
Wicket framework API *ISN'T* its primary goal. API clarity *IS*. Less
questions on the mailing list regarding DDC, ListView,
I think we are ready to release 1.3.4. Let me ping the others if it
can be this weekend (I don't have time before)
Frank
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:57 PM, OliZilla <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Any news on the 1.3.4 release date yet?
> We are waiting on a couple of fixes that are already committe
Generics is type safety
Not API clarity that was only the case in a few things.
I am against this abuse big time -1000 from me
Then no generics
johan
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Martijn Dashorst <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Typesafety from getObject() was never the ultimate goal. API cla
I think that is only part of the problem in this instance. The other
part of the problem is that Base.class presents only runtime
information. There is no way to invoke Base.class to get
Class> in a manner similar to how you can invoke a generic
method. The type represented in the <> returned by a
Typesafety from getObject() was never the ultimate goal. API clarity
was, and JavaDoc is not API clarity.
Martijn
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 4:59 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Johan Compagner wrote:
>>
>> yes i also thought about some time ago.
>>
>> But this is not really bett
Johan Compagner wrote:
yes i also thought about some time ago.
But this is not really better... Now without you doing a cast in the code
(so that you know what you are doing)
you suddenly have a class cast exception at some point later on
class MyComp extends Component {
public MyComp()
Just to make shure,
do you still see a bug?
Or are things fine now?
mf
2008/5/20 Java Programmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Found bug in that version comma after 'marker': overlayID, in
> addGOverlayListener click event, probably repaired in earlier
> versions, sorry for troubling you :(.
>
> Best
yes i also thought about some time ago.
But this is not really better... Now without you doing a cast in the code
(so that you know what you are doing)
you suddenly have a class cast exception at some point later on
class MyComp extends Component {
public MyComp() {
IModel mode
The changes to BookmarkablePageLink are working, but not for
RestartResponseAtInterceptPageException?
It looks like BookmarkablePageLink is:
new BookmarkablePageLink(final String id, final Class pageClass)
while
new RestartResponseAtInterceptPageException(
final Class< ? ext
Hi,
I want to create a form in a Wicket Panel that POSTs its data to an external
site.
Simple coding it in the HTML does not work since the target URL and some
hidden values will be insterted dynamically.
Is there something similar to an ExternalLink only form Forms?
Or do I have to add the HTML
Ryan,
this is already fixed in trunk and will be included in the rebuilt M2
release.
Gerolf
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:49 PM, Ryan McKinley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> does this mean it should work now?
>
> strangely, things work fine for me in eclipse, but from the command line, I
> still get
Use a custom validator?
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 10:13 AM, Tim Sarver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How does one validate two dates with one another on the same form? As seen
> in the snippets below, I've added the validators in the onSubmit() of the form
> which actually works, though not on the f
How does one validate two dates with one another on the same form? As seen
in the snippets below, I've added the validators in the onSubmit() of the form
which actually works, though not on the first time the form is submitted only on
subsequent submittals. Could someone throw me a bone on how
Any news on the 1.3.4 release date yet?
We are waiting on a couple of fixes that are already committed, but we don't
want to go back to using a SNAPSHOT if the 1.3.4 release is on the horizon.
Cheers,
Oli
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/1.3.4-Release-tp16810205p1736424
i did it...was simple!I had to declare Folder folder field in ListView
Constructor...
now the systems opens the mails, but the problem is it not opens non-HTML
mails...How can i do the trick?
Davidoff wrote:
>
> i resolved that problem...i put a label instead of
> MultiLineLabel...thanks.
> Now
does this mean it should work now?
strangely, things work fine for me in eclipse, but from the command
line, I still get:
$ mvn clean install:
/Users/ryan/Documents/workspace/dexter/website/src/java/dexter/website/
wicket/page/DownloadingPage.java:[18,97] inconvertible types
found :
jav
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 15:22 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Does this always work nicely though, because you need to do a capture
> which means that the compiler must be able to infer the type... I've had
> problems before in these kind of situations that for me it seems
> obvious, but the
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Thomas Mäder <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why would you add a large chunk of code to your project if you're not sure
> you're going to need it? My advice: leave Spring out until it's actually
> solving a concrete problem for you.
Spring (or another dependency injec
Joni Freeman wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:44 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
not. IModel itself is rather contained.
Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
@SuppressW
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
not. IModel itself is rather contained.
Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
@SuppressWarn
I must say if this works, it has my +1000 support.
Martijn
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Joni Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:44 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
>> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
>> > Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care o
Why would you add a large chunk of code to your project if you're not sure
you're going to need it? My advice: leave Spring out until it's actually
solving a concrete problem for you.
Thomas
PS: but then again I never understood what Spring was for anyway ;-)
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:04 AM, Bru
On Wed, 2008-05-21 at 14:44 +0200, Sebastiaan van Erk wrote:
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> > Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
> > not. IModel itself is rather contained.
>
> Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
> @SuppressWarning
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:44 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Generified component touches *ALL* code in Wicket, wether you care or
>> not. IModel itself is rather contained.
> Yes, but in my opinion rather useless as well. Plus you get heaps of
> @SuppressWarnings all over the
Having moved my wicket project to the 1.4 trunk, I have to say that I like
generics quite a bit. Yes, there is a bit of a learning curve with them,
but in general I like not having to cast my getModelObject() calls. It is
especially nice inside of DataView and DropDownChoice. Learning curve
pro
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Generics are hard, especially for library/framework designers: it's hard to
get them exactly right, especially with wildcards in complex cases. But just
because they are not currently exactly r
On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:19 PM, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Generics are hard, especially for library/framework designers: it's hard to
> get them exactly right, especially with wildcards in complex cases. But just
> because they are not currently exactly right yet in M1 seems
Martijn Dashorst wrote:
That is not my problem. The problem is that Component is confusing
as hell and opens up the box of pandorra wrt generics. I *like*
IModel but I fail to see how setResponsePage(>>) is necessary for this. The only reason iirc to generify
component is to remove the casts for
What I'm proposing would not require the same "first name" model on both
validators. I might not have been clear enough in my explanation...
StringValidator.minimum='${label}' with value '${input}' is shorter than
the minimum of ${minimum} characters.
CustomStringValidator.minimum='${label}' with
Igor Vaynberg wrote:
why should all wicket-stuff projects follow the same release schedule?
all these projects are owned by different people, their only thing in
common being the svn repository.
Technically you are right. But I think there is more to it, than just
only technique.
More than
1 - 100 of 129 matches
Mail list logo