Re: Add Any option to DropDownChoice
Actually it works without a null in your choices. Sven -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Add-Any-option-to-DropDownChoice-tp2281498p2281887.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: localize options DropDownChoice
By default option values are indexed based and not part of internationalization. Use IChoiceRenderer#getIdValue(). Sven -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/localize-options-DropDownChoice-tp2281778p2281892.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
SV: Internationalizing a DDC
option value=0Day/option option value=1Week /option option value=2Fortnight/option option value=3Month/option option value=4Year/option If you really want to hardcode the options in the HTML like that, remember not to use DropDownChoice which will replace the markup, but make your own FormComponent subclass that preserves the entire markup. In this case, you could try option value=0wicket:message key=period.1Day/wicket:message/option But the DropDownChoice + ChoiceRenderer is a better option, even if the option list is static. In that case you just call getString(period.+idvalue) in getDisplayValue() - Tor Iver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
SV: Configuration Q re Maven Profiles and Start
Something like run org.mypackage.Start ? http://mojo.codehaus.org/exec-maven-plugin/ mvn -Pwhatever -DmainClass=org.mypackage.Start exec:java - Tor Iver - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
AW: AW: Serialization of injected EJBs
Yes, @EJB is still available, and it is still required in some cases. But the general approach to injection has changed with CDI. See http://seamframework.org/Community/InjectingWithEJBOrInject for a discussion. My original question is about how to use Wicket with CDI (injecting EJBs and other beans), and your suggestion is not to use CDI, which does not really solve the problem... By the way, the nice thing about @Inject is that you no longer have to use JNDI lookups or bean names in @EJB annotations. And the specific problem is NOT that @Inject does not not work for EJBs, but the injected proxies fail to serialize properly. If I understand the javaee-inject implementation correctly, it takes care not to serialize proxies but replaces them by references on serialization, looking up the same reference again on deserialization. I suppose my problem would be solved if the CDI InjectionTarget were using this approach, but this is a CDI implementation detail and out of my control. Anybody else out there using Wicket+CDI+EJB? Have you come across similar problems? Best regards, Harald -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Major Péter [mailto:majorpe...@sch.bme.hu] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 7. Juli 2010 19:43 An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: Serialization of injected EJBs Nope, it does not support CDI. AFAIK @EJB is not deprecated or old-style, and it's still available in Java EE 6. The thread was about injecting EJB's and JavaEE Inject does exactly that. You can always use lookups for your beans/CDI stuff... Regards, Peter 2010-07-07 19:34 keltezéssel, Harald Wellmann írta: Does javaee-inject support CDI at all? I cannot find any @Inject annotations in the examples you mentioned, they all seem to be in Java EE 5 style, not Java EE 6. Regards, Harald - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: ListView in a Form -- issue with properties
hi, just add the form wicket id in property file. e.g. wicket:id=xxxForm -wicket:id=valueListView -wicket:id=value xxxForm.valueListView.value.Required=please enter the value Trevor Baker-2 wrote: Hi, I have a form that has an ListView (wicket:id=”valueListView”) of a bunch of required text fields (wicket:id=”value”). In my WebApplication.properties, I have: form.valueListView.value.Required=Please enter the Value However when I submit the form, in my error feedback if the field is blank it always displays the default: Field 'value is required. What is the proper way to write the property so it displays my custom error feedback message? Thanks, Trev -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/ListView-in-a-Form-issue-with-properties-tp2281199p2282008.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
RE: Single inheritence in parts
This issue has come up many, many times before: http://www.mail-archive.com/users@wicket.apache.org/msg06381.html http://www.mail-archive.com/wicket-u...@lists.sourceforge.net/msg26247.h tml Unfortunately some people try to convince the group that proposals like the one you have presented here are not in line with Java's 'single inheritance' model and therefore must be 'multiple inheritance' but they are clearly not understanding the issue properly. What you are suggesting here is not 'the horror of multiple inheritance'. It is simply single inheritance with 'multiple overridable markup sections' and therefore would IMHO be an excellent enhancement to Wicket. Stefan and I were discussing multiple options more than a year ago and Stefan even went to the effort of creating a Wicket patch that implemented support for overriding multiple sections but I'm pretty sure it hasn't yet been added to SVN. Stefan raised a feature request for this in JIRA: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1134 The only thing extra that we discussed that you have not included in your sample is that when we move from ONE overridable markup section to MULTIPLE overridable sections (but still only a single super class/markup!) we need to introduce and a way of identifying each section (which obviously isn't required when you limit the number of overridable sections to 1. The great thing about identifying which section you are overriding is that you can pick and choose which sections you override and which you just 'default' to the markup of the super class/markup file. I'm actually thinking that using specific wicket:extend and wicket:child is a big hinderance to chaining in a hierarchy because you have a different tag depending on whether you are providing a 'markup section' to be overridden or whether you are overriding a 'markup section'. This gets awkward and clumsy when it comes to flexible 'chaining' down an inheritance hierarchy and Java has no such equivalent. We could probably have a single tag to be used consistently in super or subclass to allow very simple syntax that supports fluid inheritance down a markup hierarchy: wicket:namedsection id=header (or whatever) Overriding is then optional: absence of a named section in a subclass markup simply means that the markup from the closest superclass markup should be used. I really hope this gets implemented soon. The 'workaround' that is often suggested is a 'component based' workaround rather than a truly object oriented approach that allows multiple sections to be overridden. As a hard line OOer that doesn't quite cut it. I have even gone to the extent of creating a special markup preparser that lets me write markup with multiple overridable sections which are then compiled to 'flattened' markup for Wicket to process at run time. It works extremely well and satisfies my needs but it would be nicer if it was supported natively in Wicket. -Original Message- From: Arjun Dhar [mailto:dhar...@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, 5 July 2010 3:40 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Single inheritence in parts Hi, all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible but I cant break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common parts of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page. Example: HTML HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD BODY wicket:child / br / h2Some other Html common/h2 wicket:child / /BODY /HTML --- HTML HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD BODY wicket:extend Part 1 specific to Child Page /wicket:extend Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what appears in extend is what should be rendered from a child page. wicket:extend Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after common HTML in parent page) /wicket:extend /BODY /HTML I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can add such capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do let me know or consider as a feature request?! -Thanks Arjun -- View this message in context: http://apache- wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts- tp2278064p2278064.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
RE: Single inheritence in parts
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long discussions. Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple inheritance, not single. Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this but this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance. For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There remains only a single super class/markup file. All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does not restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class: You can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that does not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the number of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to ONE. All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1. Jeremy Thomerson -- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling errors On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote: Hi, all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible but I cant break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common parts of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page. Example: HTML HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD BODY wicket:child / br / h2Some other Html common/h2 wicket:child / /BODY /HTML --- HTML HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD BODY wicket:extend Part 1 specific to Child Page /wicket:extend Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what appears in extend is what should be rendered from a child page. wicket:extend Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after common HTML in parent page) /wicket:extend /BODY /HTML I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can add such capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do let me know or consider as a feature request?! -Thanks Arjun -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts- tp2278064p2278064.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Clash between AutoComplete request and Form submit request
Hi, suppose there is a TextField with an AutoCompleteBehavior in a Form. Pressing a key will create an Ajax RequestCycle to process the key, and will finally invoke RequestCycle.detach(), which will invoke WebSession.cleanupFeedbackMessages(). Pressing enter will create a normal RequestCycle to process the form, which will also invoke RequestCycle.detach(), and then WebSession.cleanupFeedbackMessages(). Now suppose there are other FormComponents in this Form, some taking a few ms to validate, and suppose the first field generated a FeedbackMessage. It is obvious that now, there will be two threads running concurrently, one processing the Ajax RequestCycle (A), and one processing the Form submit RequestCycle (B). While the second thread B is still processing the Form, the first thread A already finished and cleans up the FeedbackMessages - which the second thread B that added them didn't even have a chance to render yet! This can be easily provoked if the text field is set as required, by entering a single character in the empty TextField, pressing Backspace and immediately Enter to submit the Form. This scenario should be quite common. The result is that there are no feedback messages shown to the user, but in development mode the usual message that a Component-targetted feedback message was left unrendered is logged. I have worked around this problem by using if (request.isAjax()) setAutomaticallyClearFeedbackMessages(false); in a custom RequestCycle constructor. If this is indeed as I suspect a bug in Wicket, I will file a bug for it. It seems to me that it is wrong in any case that a RequestCycle cleans the FeedbackMessages from another RequestCycle. In Session, there is documentation referring to flash messages, which I suppose is what feedback messages were called previously, and there is mention that these must persist across RequestCycles under some circumstances - which seems correct considering the condition in WebSession.cleanupFeedbackMessages(). Thus, direcly associating FeedbackMessages with a RequestCycle is not possible. But it should at least be possible to note which RequestCycle generated which FeedbackMessage, and then clean only those FeedbackMessages owned by the RequestCycle in the normal case, and only clean these persistent FeedbackMessages where necessary. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
String not serializable exception coming for interned strings from Model with JRockit/Weblogic
Hi, The following seems to be a bug with JRockit or Weblogic, but maybe someone on this list has seen it before and has a better workaround/solution. We have been developing a Wicket application for a government agency that is going to be used by 15k users. The application will be deployed on a Weblogic cluster running on JRockit and Red Hat. We have been experiencing strange Model object not serializable exceptions coming from Model and traced it back to interned (by the compiler) String objects becoming not serializable after hitting the server with a few hundred parallel users. Once the exception occurs for a given String reference it keeps coming consistently for that reference. The current workaround is a custom Model class that has an overrided setObject method which checks the object if it's instanceof Serializable and if the check fails it sets new String(object) on the Model. This eliminates the exceptions but would like a better solution to the problem. Has anyone seen anything like this? Thanks and regards, Janos - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button ... is not visible
I have an AjaxButton with
@Override
public boolean isVisible() {
return someFlag;
}
In a race condition, if user B sets someFlag to false, and then user A
clicks the button A gets the following exception
org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button buttonName ... is
not visible
Any ideas how to circumvent this?
Conny
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/org-apache-wicket-WicketRuntimeException-Submit-Button-is-not-visible-tp2282413p2282413.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Using absolute URLs in Ajax-Forms, -buttons and -links
Hello all,
I'm trying to kind of embed a wicket app into another web page, meaning
that the wicket pages are included as part of the other web page. All
submits, links, buttons in the wicket pages are realised using wicket's
ajax features.
Unfortunately, the wicketSubmitFormById call in an Ajax form submit is
using a relative URL, like in the following example:
input id=compose74 type=submit value=Submit name=compose
onclick=wicketShow('compose74--ajax-indicator');var
wcall=wicketSubmitFormById('form77',
'?wicket:interface=:8:contentDiv:contentPanel:form:compose::IActivePageBehaviorListener:0:-1amp;wicket:ignoreIfNotActive=true',
'compose' ,function() {
;wicketHide('compose74--ajax-indicator');}.bind(this),function() {
;wicketHide('compose74--ajax-indicator');}.bind(this), function()
{return Wicket.$$(this)amp;amp;Wicket.$$('form77')}.bind(this));;;
return false;
This call fails of course if the wicket page is embedded into the
other web page. So, my question would be: is there a way to tell wicket
to use an absolute URL in this call to wicketSubmitFormById?
Thanks in advance,
Philip
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Wicket wicket-contrib-tinymce populate Styles drop-down
Can somebody please help me populate drop down menu for Styles? Customer decided to use this option and I have difficulties to figure out how to do it. Even in the wicket-contrib-tinymce examples this is not active. Peter
Re: org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button ... is not visible
Hi! It is not a best solutions but you can try it ajaxButton.add(new AjaxSelfUpdatingTimerBehavior(Duration.milliseconds(1))); -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/org-apache-wicket-WicketRuntimeException-Submit-Button-is-not-visible-tp2282413p2282506.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button ... is not visible
someFlag is an static variable?
2010/7/8 Conny Kühne conny.kue...@gmail.com
I have an AjaxButton with
@Override
public boolean isVisible() {
return someFlag;
}
In a race condition, if user B sets someFlag to false, and then user A
clicks the button A gets the following exception
org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button buttonName ... is
not visible
Any ideas how to circumvent this?
Conny
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/org-apache-wicket-WicketRuntimeException-Submit-Button-is-not-visible-tp2282413p2282413.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
--
Pedro Henrique Oliveira dos Santos
Re: org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button ... is not visible
new AjaxButton() {
private boolean available;
onBeforeRender() {
available = someFlag();
}
isVisible() {
return available;
}
onSubmit() {
if (!available) {
error(no longer available);
}
}
}
Sven
On 07/08/2010 04:48 PM, Conny Kühne wrote:
I have an AjaxButton with
@Override
public boolean isVisible() {
return someFlag;
}
In a race condition, if user B sets someFlag to false, and then user A
clicks the button A gets the following exception
org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button buttonName ... is
not visible
Any ideas how to circumvent this?
Conny
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button ... is not visible
Thanks. That would have solved it. I am using setVisible(someFlag) now. Doh! ;) -- View this message in context: http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/org-apache-wicket-WicketRuntimeException-Submit-Button-is-not-visible-tp2282413p2282534.html Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: org.apache.wicket.WicketRuntimeException: Submit Button ... is not visible
But question is still open:)
Look to example
public static boolean visibleFlag = true;
public VisibilityButtonTest()
{
FormVoid form = new FormVoid(form);
add(form);
AjaxButton ajaxButton = new AjaxButton(button1)
{
@Override
public boolean isVisible()
{
return visibleFlag;
}
@Override
protected void onSubmit(AjaxRequestTarget target, Form? form)
{
// do nothing
}
};
form.add(ajaxButton);
form.add(new AjaxButton(button2)
{
@Override
protected void onSubmit(AjaxRequestTarget target, Form? form)
{
visibleFlag = false;
}
});
}
after open this page press to button2 and after to button1
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/org-apache-wicket-WicketRuntimeException-Submit-Button-is-not-visible-tp2282413p2282540.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Single inheritence in parts
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1();
abstract Component getPart2();
}
html
div wicket:id=id4part1 /
wicket:child /
div wicket:id=id4part2 /
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.comwrote:
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long discussions.
Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
inheritance,
not single.
Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this but
this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There remains
only a single super class/markup file.
All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does not
restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class: You
can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that does
not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the number
of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
ONE.
All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1.
Jeremy Thomerson
-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
errors
On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible but I
cant
break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
parts
of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
Example:
HTML
HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:child /
br /
h2Some other Html common/h2
wicket:child /
/BODY
/HTML
---
HTML
HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:extend
Part 1 specific to Child Page
/wicket:extend
Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what appears
in
extend is what should be rendered from a child page.
wicket:extend
Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
common
HTML in parent page)
/wicket:extend
/BODY
/HTML
I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can add
such
capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
let me
know or consider as a feature request?!
-Thanks Arjun
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
tp2278064p2278064.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
AW: AW: Serialization of injected EJBs
In theory, yes... The proxies returned by Weld 1.0.1.SP3 (the version used in Glassfish 3.0.1) are serializable, but after serializing and deserializing the proxy, the method handler is broken and you get a null pointer exception when invoking any method of the proxy. i verified this in a simple test case, independent of Wicket. This looks like the problem fixed in https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JASSIST-97, though I'm not fully sure that this is exactly the same issue. Anyway, I patched my Glassfish version with the most recent release of Javassist containing the bugfix. With this fix, I already get a NotSerializableException from Wicket when the current page is about to be moved to the page store: protected java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler java.lang.reflect.Proxy.h [class=com.sun.ejb.containers.EJBLocalObjectInvocationHandlerDelegate] - field that is not serializable It seems that the stateless session bean implementation is wrapped in at least two proxies, one generated by Glassfish (for getting the session bean into the CDI context, equivalent to @EJB injection) and another one, generated by Weld using Javassist, filling the @Inject injection point in my Wicket component. The outer proxy is ok with the newer Javassist version, but the inner proxy simply is not serializable because of EJBLocalObjectInvocationHandlerDelegate. Using @EJB instead of @Inject, I just get the inner proxy, with the same problem caused by EJBLocalObjectInvocationHandlerDelegate. So my impression is that Glassfish simply breaks the contract of my serializable session bean interface. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a paragraph somewhere in the Java EE specs stating that EJBs shall not be serialized by the application (i.e. Wicket) because the container takes care of passivation anyway... Has anybody tried Wicket+CDI+EJB on other app servers? (There aren't so many supporting Java EE 6) Regards, Harald Von: Igor Vaynberg [igor.vaynb...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2010 17:54 An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: Serialization of injected EJBs im not sure if this is in a CDI spec or not, but afaik Weld will return serializable proxies when you manually inject objects. so that should work out of the box. -igor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
RE: Single inheritence in parts
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1();
abstract Component getPart2();
}
html
div wicket:id=id4part1 /
wicket:child /
div wicket:id=id4part2 /
That's the component based workaround that I mentioned which IMHO isn't
really the pure markup OO solution we're proposing. I'm hoping for true
markup inheritance that supports multiple overridable sections that
doesn't mandate a Java side coding change each time a markup editor adds
or removes a particular overridable section.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.comwrote:
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long
discussions.
Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
inheritance,
not single.
Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this
but
this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There
remains
only a single super class/markup file.
All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does
not
restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class:
You
can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that
does
not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the
number
of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
ONE.
All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1.
Jeremy Thomerson
-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
errors
On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible
but I
cant
break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
parts
of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
Example:
HTML
HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:child /
br /
h2Some other Html common/h2
wicket:child /
/BODY
/HTML
---
HTML
HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:extend
Part 1 specific to Child Page
/wicket:extend
Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what
appears
in
extend is what should be rendered from a child page.
wicket:extend
Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
common
HTML in parent page)
/wicket:extend
/BODY
/HTML
I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can
add
such
capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
let me
know or consider as a feature request?!
-Thanks Arjun
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
tp2278064p2278064.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: AW: Serialization of injected EJBs
hrm, if thats the case you can always use wicket-ioc module to build the proxy yourself just like we do for spring and guice, it should only be a couple of hours effort. -igor On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 10:34 AM, Harald Wellmann harald.wellm...@multi-m.de wrote: In theory, yes... The proxies returned by Weld 1.0.1.SP3 (the version used in Glassfish 3.0.1) are serializable, but after serializing and deserializing the proxy, the method handler is broken and you get a null pointer exception when invoking any method of the proxy. i verified this in a simple test case, independent of Wicket. This looks like the problem fixed in https://jira.jboss.org/browse/JASSIST-97, though I'm not fully sure that this is exactly the same issue. Anyway, I patched my Glassfish version with the most recent release of Javassist containing the bugfix. With this fix, I already get a NotSerializableException from Wicket when the current page is about to be moved to the page store: protected java.lang.reflect.InvocationHandler java.lang.reflect.Proxy.h [class=com.sun.ejb.containers.EJBLocalObjectInvocationHandlerDelegate] - field that is not serializable It seems that the stateless session bean implementation is wrapped in at least two proxies, one generated by Glassfish (for getting the session bean into the CDI context, equivalent to @EJB injection) and another one, generated by Weld using Javassist, filling the @Inject injection point in my Wicket component. The outer proxy is ok with the newer Javassist version, but the inner proxy simply is not serializable because of EJBLocalObjectInvocationHandlerDelegate. Using @EJB instead of @Inject, I just get the inner proxy, with the same problem caused by EJBLocalObjectInvocationHandlerDelegate. So my impression is that Glassfish simply breaks the contract of my serializable session bean interface. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a paragraph somewhere in the Java EE specs stating that EJBs shall not be serialized by the application (i.e. Wicket) because the container takes care of passivation anyway... Has anybody tried Wicket+CDI+EJB on other app servers? (There aren't so many supporting Java EE 6) Regards, Harald Von: Igor Vaynberg [igor.vaynb...@gmail.com] Gesendet: Donnerstag, 8. Juli 2010 17:54 An: users@wicket.apache.org Betreff: Re: AW: Serialization of injected EJBs im not sure if this is in a CDI spec or not, but afaik Weld will return serializable proxies when you manually inject objects. so that should work out of the box. -igor - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Single inheritence in parts
And, this method doesn't really work very well either. You can't
reliably call those abstract methods from the superclass' constructor.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com wrote:
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1();
abstract Component getPart2();
}
html
div wicket:id=id4part1 /
wicket:child /
div wicket:id=id4part2 /
That's the component based workaround that I mentioned which IMHO isn't
really the pure markup OO solution we're proposing. I'm hoping for true
markup inheritance that supports multiple overridable sections that
doesn't mandate a Java side coding change each time a markup editor adds
or removes a particular overridable section.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.comwrote:
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long
discussions.
Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
inheritance,
not single.
Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this
but
this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There
remains
only a single super class/markup file.
All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does
not
restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class:
You
can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that
does
not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the
number
of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
ONE.
All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1.
Jeremy Thomerson
-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
errors
On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible
but I
cant
break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
parts
of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
Example:
HTML
HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:child /
br /
h2Some other Html common/h2
wicket:child /
/BODY
/HTML
---
HTML
HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:extend
Part 1 specific to Child Page
/wicket:extend
Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what
appears
in
extend is what should be rendered from a child page.
wicket:extend
Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
common
HTML in parent page)
/wicket:extend
/BODY
/HTML
I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can
add
such
capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
let me
know or consider as a feature request?!
-Thanks Arjun
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
tp2278064p2278064.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Single inheritence in parts
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1(String id);
abstract Component getPart2(String id);
onBeforeRender() {
if (get(part1)==null) { add(getPart1(part1)); }
if (get(part2)==null) { add(getPart2(part1)); }
}}
in 1.5 it would be done like this
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1(String id);
abstract Component getPart2(String id);
onInitialize() {
add(getPart1(part1));
add(getPart2(part1));
}}
-igor
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
And, this method doesn't really work very well either. You can't
reliably call those abstract methods from the superclass' constructor.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com wrote:
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1();
abstract Component getPart2();
}
html
div wicket:id=id4part1 /
wicket:child /
div wicket:id=id4part2 /
That's the component based workaround that I mentioned which IMHO isn't
really the pure markup OO solution we're proposing. I'm hoping for true
markup inheritance that supports multiple overridable sections that
doesn't mandate a Java side coding change each time a markup editor adds
or removes a particular overridable section.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.comwrote:
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long
discussions.
Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
inheritance,
not single.
Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this
but
this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There
remains
only a single super class/markup file.
All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does
not
restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class:
You
can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that
does
not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the
number
of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
ONE.
All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1.
Jeremy Thomerson
-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
errors
On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible
but I
cant
break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
parts
of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
Example:
HTML
HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:child /
br /
h2Some other Html common/h2
wicket:child /
/BODY
/HTML
---
HTML
HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:extend
Part 1 specific to Child Page
/wicket:extend
Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what
appears
in
extend is what should be rendered from a child page.
wicket:extend
Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
common
HTML in parent page)
/wicket:extend
/BODY
/HTML
I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can
add
such
capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
let me
know or consider as a feature request?!
-Thanks Arjun
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
tp2278064p2278064.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Single inheritence in parts
Use a pre render listener to call your render method. The constructor
stuff is pretty bad though. If you have the listener look for the
@PostConstruct annotation it even looks like its supposed to work that way.
imo if multiple markup section inheritance were implemented you would really
limit how your allowed to use the framework. As it is its simple (ignoring
constructor/rendering pains) and in your control not the frameworks.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:23 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.comwrote:
And, this method doesn't really work very well either. You can't
reliably call those abstract methods from the superclass' constructor.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com wrote:
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1();
abstract Component getPart2();
}
html
div wicket:id=id4part1 /
wicket:child /
div wicket:id=id4part2 /
That's the component based workaround that I mentioned which IMHO isn't
really the pure markup OO solution we're proposing. I'm hoping for true
markup inheritance that supports multiple overridable sections that
doesn't mandate a Java side coding change each time a markup editor adds
or removes a particular overridable section.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.comwrote:
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long
discussions.
Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
inheritance,
not single.
Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this
but
this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There
remains
only a single super class/markup file.
All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does
not
restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class:
You
can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that
does
not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the
number
of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
ONE.
All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1.
Jeremy Thomerson
-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
errors
On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible
but I
cant
break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
parts
of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
Example:
HTML
HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:child /
br /
h2Some other Html common/h2
wicket:child /
/BODY
/HTML
---
HTML
HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:extend
Part 1 specific to Child Page
/wicket:extend
Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what
appears
in
extend is what should be rendered from a child page.
wicket:extend
Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
common
HTML in parent page)
/wicket:extend
/BODY
/HTML
I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can
add
such
capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
let me
know or consider as a feature request?!
-Thanks Arjun
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
tp2278064p2278064.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Single inheritence in parts
Right, it's doable, but there's a bit of homework you have to do to
make sure it all works correctly. You have to solve the whole
onFirstRender problem in a reliable way. Our base page has an
overridable onFirstRender() method that subclasses can override if
they wish to do this sort of initialization. I like the
onInitialize() method name better, though.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1(String id);
abstract Component getPart2(String id);
onBeforeRender() {
if (get(part1)==null) { add(getPart1(part1)); }
if (get(part2)==null) { add(getPart2(part1)); }
}}
in 1.5 it would be done like this
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1(String id);
abstract Component getPart2(String id);
onInitialize() {
add(getPart1(part1));
add(getPart2(part1));
}}
-igor
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
And, this method doesn't really work very well either. You can't
reliably call those abstract methods from the superclass' constructor.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com wrote:
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1();
abstract Component getPart2();
}
html
div wicket:id=id4part1 /
wicket:child /
div wicket:id=id4part2 /
That's the component based workaround that I mentioned which IMHO isn't
really the pure markup OO solution we're proposing. I'm hoping for true
markup inheritance that supports multiple overridable sections that
doesn't mandate a Java side coding change each time a markup editor adds
or removes a particular overridable section.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.comwrote:
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long
discussions.
Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
inheritance,
not single.
Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this
but
this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There
remains
only a single super class/markup file.
All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does
not
restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class:
You
can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that
does
not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the
number
of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
ONE.
All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1.
Jeremy Thomerson
-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
errors
On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible
but I
cant
break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
parts
of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
Example:
HTML
HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:child /
br /
h2Some other Html common/h2
wicket:child /
/BODY
/HTML
---
HTML
HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:extend
Part 1 specific to Child Page
/wicket:extend
Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what
appears
in
extend is what should be rendered from a child page.
wicket:extend
Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
common
HTML in parent page)
/wicket:extend
/BODY
/HTML
I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can
add
such
capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
let me
know or consider as a feature request?!
-Thanks Arjun
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
tp2278064p2278064.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands,
Re: Single inheritence in parts
Right, well put then. :)
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:41 PM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com wrote:
my point was simply that it is trivial to solve, it has a well known
solution, and this is not the only usecase where it applies. you will
need to do your homework no matter which way you go.
-igor
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:35 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
Right, it's doable, but there's a bit of homework you have to do to
make sure it all works correctly. You have to solve the whole
onFirstRender problem in a reliable way. Our base page has an
overridable onFirstRender() method that subclasses can override if
they wish to do this sort of initialization. I like the
onInitialize() method name better, though.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:29 PM, Igor Vaynberg igor.vaynb...@gmail.com
wrote:
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1(String id);
abstract Component getPart2(String id);
onBeforeRender() {
if (get(part1)==null) { add(getPart1(part1)); }
if (get(part2)==null) { add(getPart2(part1)); }
}}
in 1.5 it would be done like this
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1(String id);
abstract Component getPart2(String id);
onInitialize() {
add(getPart1(part1));
add(getPart2(part1));
}}
-igor
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:23 PM, James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com
wrote:
And, this method doesn't really work very well either. You can't
reliably call those abstract methods from the superclass' constructor.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 2:47 PM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com wrote:
class Page extends Page {
abstract Component getPart1();
abstract Component getPart2();
}
html
div wicket:id=id4part1 /
wicket:child /
div wicket:id=id4part2 /
That's the component based workaround that I mentioned which IMHO isn't
really the pure markup OO solution we're proposing. I'm hoping for true
markup inheritance that supports multiple overridable sections that
doesn't mandate a Java side coding change each time a markup editor adds
or removes a particular overridable section.
On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 5:49 AM, Chris Colman
chr...@stepaheadsoftware.comwrote:
Search the list for this and you'll find some quite long
discussions.
Basically, it's not going to happen. This would be multiple
inheritance,
not single.
Hi Jeremy, I hope I don't sound confrontationalist when I say this
but
this is clearly not a case of multiple inheritance.
For this request to be deemed to be multiple inheritance one
class/markup file would need to be inheriting from two separate super
classes/markup files. That is not what is requested here. There
remains
only a single super class/markup file.
All that is requested here is for multiple markup sections to be
overridden in this single inheritance scenario - just like Java does
not
restrict you to overriding only a single method in any Java class:
You
can override as many methods as you like in a Java class but that
does
not break Java's single inheritance model - which constrains the
number
of base classes to ONE, not the number of methods you can override to
ONE.
All this user (and others before him) are asking is for wicket to
support the overriding of N markup sections without instead of the
arbitrarily imposed constraint of N = 1.
Jeremy Thomerson
-- sent from my smartphone - please excuse formatting and spelling
errors
On Jul 5, 2010 12:41 AM, Arjun Dhar dhar...@yahoo.com wrote:
Hi,
all the examples etc suggest that Single inheritence is possible
but I
cant
break it up. The break up is essential when you want to merge common
parts
of your MARKUP with multiple specific parts of the Child page.
Example:
HTML
HEADtitleBASE TEMPLATE / PARENT PAGE/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:child /
br /
h2Some other Html common/h2
wicket:child /
/BODY
/HTML
---
HTML
HEADtitleCHILD PAGE 1/title/HEAD
BODY
wicket:extend
Part 1 specific to Child Page
/wicket:extend
Any HTML here can be ignored as conceptually anyway what
appears
in
extend is what should be rendered from a child page.
wicket:extend
Part 2 Specific to Child Page (will appear after
common
HTML in parent page)
/wicket:extend
/BODY
/HTML
I tried this, only the first part renders. I'm wondering if we can
add
such
capability. Conceptually I don't see why not. If already possible do
let me
know or consider as a feature request?!
-Thanks Arjun
--
View this message in context:
http://apache-wicket.1842946.n4.nabble.com/Single-inheritence-in-parts-
tp2278064p2278064.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands,
How to combine a form and a link that submit the same page?
Hi folks, I'm trying to write a page that displays search results. The page contains a form allowing the user to input search criteria. It also displays the list of results with links for paging back and forth through the result set. I'm having a bit of trouble because the pageParameters coming from the form can be in conflict with the pageParameters coming from the paging navigation links. For example: A user enters a name in the form, submits it and the results are displayed. If they then use the paging navigation link to display the second page, the query parameters will contain the name first entered in the form. If the user enters a new name in the form and submits it again, the page parameters will contain both names. So the question is, when I submit the form, how do I ignore any pageParameters that weren't actually from the form? Cheers, Kevin
Re: How to combine a form and a link that submit the same page?
Hi! Few points to consider: 1. I hope you do not parse pageParameters manually, let wicket handle that for simple cases. 2. Don't allow your paging buttons to submit data, set button.setDefaultFormProcessing(false); 3. Separate your search form and other forms from each other: form search form search criteria /form div other content form some other forms.../form /div ** Martin 2010/7/9 Kevin Stembridge kevin.stembri...@gmail.com: Hi folks, I'm trying to write a page that displays search results. The page contains a form allowing the user to input search criteria. It also displays the list of results with links for paging back and forth through the result set. I'm having a bit of trouble because the pageParameters coming from the form can be in conflict with the pageParameters coming from the paging navigation links. For example: A user enters a name in the form, submits it and the results are displayed. If they then use the paging navigation link to display the second page, the query parameters will contain the name first entered in the form. If the user enters a new name in the form and submits it again, the page parameters will contain both names. So the question is, when I submit the form, how do I ignore any pageParameters that weren't actually from the form? Cheers, Kevin - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
AjaxButton documentation error?
The JavaDoc for AjaxButton (and AjaxSubmitButton) says: A button that submits the form via ajax. Since this button takes the form as a constructor argument it does not need to be added to it unlike the Button component. Well I've just spent a good amount of time putting that theory to the test. I use the constructor that takes the form as its second parameter. Basically the form fails with an error saying wicket can't find the button component unless I explicitly add the AjaxButton object to the form object, seemingly contradicting the above doco quote. The Wicket example explicitly adds the button to the form too - which also seems to go against the above doco declaration. Maybe it's a rare case where reading the documentation is not a good idea =} - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
about treeLink
is there any complete sample or demo of the treeLink thank you. -
Re: about treeLink
http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/nested/ On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:09 PM, 蔡茂昌 caimaochang.c...@gmail.com wrote: is there any complete sample or demo of the treeLink thank you. - -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com
RE: about treeLink
Can the wicket trees support context menus? (eg., right click on a node and a pop up menu appears near where the mouse went down) -Original Message- From: Jeremy Thomerson [mailto:jer...@wickettraining.com] Sent: Friday, 9 July 2010 2:14 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: about treeLink http://www.wicket-library.com/wicket-examples/nested/ On Thu, Jul 8, 2010 at 9:09 PM, 蔡茂昌 caimaochang.c...@gmail.com wrote: is there any complete sample or demo of the treeLink thank you. - -- Jeremy Thomerson http://www.wickettraining.com - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
