Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
You only need models when you have something to display (and possibly
receive)
I see..so how would you comment on a component like label (just came across
this example) where you still want to display something but can go ahead
without the usage of model like add(new Label(message,Hello
World))...
That's a convenience constructor for the common case that you want to
display text you know at construction time and that you don't expect
to change with next renderings. Here is the implementation of that
constructor:
public Label(final String id, String label)
{
this(id, new Model(label));
}
As you can see - and as the Java docs tell ('Convenience constructor.
Same as Label(String, new Model(String))'), a model is implicitly
constructed.
so one cant just make clear distinction as to where to use a
model where not (i mean i know by looking at the component api one certainly
can determine)..
It's really one of the rare exceptions. Using models are the rule. It
is often when you create your own components that you may decide to go
another route.
Eelco
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
makes sense... Thanks . Farhan. mfs wrote: Guys, Would sound like a very naive question, actually still in the process of understand the different concepts in wicket, Wicket Models in this particular case...so my question is Wouldn't the below two statements act exactly the same given i have a person object (which i would say both acts as a model as well as an object to which the form data is submitted) defined in a page. add(new RequiredTextField(person.userName)); add(new RequiredTextField(person.userName),new PropertyModel(person,username)); If TRUE, the only reason i would want to have a PropertyModel (or in other words any type of Model) against a page-component would be the scenario where the object i want to use as model is different from the one i would use for data-submission...Correct..? Thanks in advance and Regards, Farhan. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Model---A-very-simple-question-tf4668214.html#a13337387 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
Nope. Typical reasons to use PropertyModels explicitly is when you don't use a CompoundPropertyModel on the parent, or when you want to use IDs that are different from the property expressions you want the model to work on. Also, note that you can use completely different models as well; property models are convenient but not the only options (as you can read in the WIKI). CompoundPropertyModel cpm = new CompoundPropertyModel (xxx); Form f = new Form(form,cpm); f.add(new TextField(username)); f.add(new TextField(notinmodel, cpm.bind(address));
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
CompoundPropertyModel cpm = new CompoundPropertyModel (xxx); Form f = new Form(form,cpm); f.add(new TextField(username)); f.add(new TextField(notinmodel, cpm.bind(address)); Yes, that is another alternative to using property model. I didn't mention this since it only complicates things. I'm not crazy about the facility anyway. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
complicates? its only a much smaller notation for creating a property model And i think it reads very well. What would be better then something reversed? cpm.bind(textField,address) ? But then you have to first have a reference.to the textfield. We had such a thing in wicket 1.1 (BoundedCompoundPropertyModel) But i think the current way is way better and nicer. johan On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: CompoundPropertyModel cpm = new CompoundPropertyModel (xxx); Form f = new Form(form,cpm); f.add(new TextField(username)); f.add(new TextField(notinmodel, cpm.bind(address)); Yes, that is another alternative to using property model. I didn't mention this since it only complicates things. I'm not crazy about the facility anyway. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: complicates? its only a much smaller notation for creating a property model And i think it reads very well. Yes, but in this particular case it doesn't let people understand better what goes on. What would be better then something reversed? cpm.bind(textField,address) ? But then you have to first have a reference.to the textfield. We had such a thing in wicket 1.1 (BoundedCompoundPropertyModel) But i think the current way is way better and nicer. I don't disagree with it. I just think that using property model is nicer because you don't need to access the parent model (which you may or may not have direct access to). Also, I was trying to explain the difference between property model and compoundproperty model. Of course, you can write a book on in how many other ways you can do the same thing. Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, you can write a book on in how many other ways you can do the same thing. I thought we already did :P Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
just go back to that chapter and redo it! On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, you can write a book on in how many other ways you can do the same thing. I thought we already did :P Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
AGAIN? AARGH!!! /me points gun to head On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: just go back to that chapter and redo it! On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, you can write a book on in how many other ways you can do the same thing. I thought we already did :P Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this forum, yet to read your book though.. Farhan. Martijn Dashorst wrote: AGAIN? AARGH!!! /me points gun to head On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: just go back to that chapter and redo it! On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Of course, you can write a book on in how many other ways you can do the same thing. I thought we already did :P Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Model---A-very-simple-question-tf4668214.html#a13353307 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
On 10/22/07, mfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this forum, yet to read your book though.. The book is even better. You don't have to listen to Igor and Johan in it :-) Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
and miss all the fun. how boring will the book be i asked my self now. On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/22/07, mfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this forum, yet to read your book though.. The book is even better. You don't have to listen to Igor and Johan in it :-) Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
On 10/22/07, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: and miss all the fun. how boring will the book be i asked my self now. You mean you didn't start reading it yet?! Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass comments? i wont buy it! -igor On 10/22/07, Martijn Dashorst [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/22/07, mfs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: LOL...anyways guys i must say that you are doing a great job on this forum, yet to read your book though.. The book is even better. You don't have to listen to Igor and Johan in it :-) Martijn -- Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta4 is released Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta4/ - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass comments? i wont buy it! It's not too late for a few quotes of you. Maybe you could write the intro's of the chapters? :-) Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
2007/10/23, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass comments? i wont buy it! It's not too late for a few quotes of you. Maybe you could write the intro's of the chapters? :-) +1 Dirk
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
lol, nice try :) you aint offloading any of this writing fun on me :) -igor On 10/22/07, Eelco Hillenius [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 10/22/07, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: must be a pretty serious book, no comic relief at all? no smartass comments? i wont buy it! It's not too late for a few quotes of you. Maybe you could write the intro's of the chapters? :-) Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
Wouldn't the below two statements act exactly the same given i have a person object (which i would say both acts as a model as well as an object to which the form data is submitted) defined in a page. add(new RequiredTextField(person.userName)); add(new RequiredTextField(person.userName),new PropertyModel(person,username)); That is only true if you set a CompoundPropertyModel on the parent (or one of the parent's parents). Btw, you'd likely let the person be the subject of either the Propertymodel or CompoundPropertyModel. If TRUE, the only reason i would want to have a PropertyModel (or in other words any type of Model) against a page-component would be the scenario where the object i want to use as model is different from the one i would use for data-submission...Correct..? Nope. Typical reasons to use PropertyModels explicitly is when you don't use a CompoundPropertyModel on the parent, or when you want to use IDs that are different from the property expressions you want the model to work on. Also, note that you can use completely different models as well; property models are convenient but not the only options (as you can read in the WIKI). Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
Eelco, Appreciate the quick follow up, so would it be OK to assume that every page-component has to have a Model associated with it, either the model is individually explicitly tagged with a component e.g. add(new RequiredTextField(dateOfBirth, new PropertyModel(person, dateOfBirth))) OR it using the model configured for its parent (which lets say could be the form or the page) via CompoundPropertyModel where you normally don't require using the PropertyModel unless the need comes (as you commented, though i have some question below on it)Correct ? Also on your comment on the usage of PropertyModels where you said ...when you want to use IDs that are different from the property expressions you want the model to work on, i assume that you are refering to a scenario where you are using a CompoundPropertyModel but you require the component to be populated from a different source other than the model set for the parent..e.g. add(new RequiredTextField (login.userName),new PropertyModel(person,username)); Thanks again and REgards, Farhan. Eelco Hillenius wrote: Wouldn't the below two statements act exactly the same given i have a person object (which i would say both acts as a model as well as an object to which the form data is submitted) defined in a page. add(new RequiredTextField(person.userName)); add(new RequiredTextField(person.userName),new PropertyModel(person,username)); That is only true if you set a CompoundPropertyModel on the parent (or one of the parent's parents). Btw, you'd likely let the person be the subject of either the Propertymodel or CompoundPropertyModel. If TRUE, the only reason i would want to have a PropertyModel (or in other words any type of Model) against a page-component would be the scenario where the object i want to use as model is different from the one i would use for data-submission...Correct..? Nope. Typical reasons to use PropertyModels explicitly is when you don't use a CompoundPropertyModel on the parent, or when you want to use IDs that are different from the property expressions you want the model to work on. Also, note that you can use completely different models as well; property models are convenient but not the only options (as you can read in the WIKI). Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Model---A-very-simple-question-tf4668214.html#a13336961 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
Appreciate the quick follow up, so would it be OK to assume that every page-component has to have a Model associated with it, You only need models when you have something to display (and possibly receive) and use components that use models (which is the case for most components we ship, but doesn't always have to be the case). either the model is individually explicitly tagged with a component e.g. add(new RequiredTextField(dateOfBirth, new PropertyModel(person, dateOfBirth))) OR it using the model configured for its parent (which lets say could be the form or the page) via CompoundPropertyModel where you normally don't require using the PropertyModel unless the need comes (as you commented, though i have some question below on it)Correct ? Correct. You typically use CompoundPropertyModels where you want display or edit a bunch of properties of an object. Using CompoundPropertyModels makes for shorter code. Also on your comment on the usage of PropertyModels where you said ...when you want to use IDs that are different from the property expressions you want the model to work on, i assume that you are refering to a scenario where you are using a CompoundPropertyModel but you require the component to be populated from a different source other than the model set for the parent..e.g. add(new RequiredTextField (login.userName),new PropertyModel(person,username)); Yeah. Like with add(new TextField(someRandomComponentId, new PropertyModel(person, firstName)); Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Wicket Model - A very simple question
You only need models when you have something to display (and possibly receive) I see..so how would you comment on a component like label (just came across this example) where you still want to display something but can go ahead without the usage of model like add(new Label(message,Hello World))...so one cant just make clear distinction as to where to use a model where not (i mean i know by looking at the component api one certainly can determine).. Thanks again. Farhan. Correct. You typically use CompoundPropertyModels where you want display or edit a bunch of properties of an object. Using CompoundPropertyModels makes for shorter code. Also on your comment on the usage of PropertyModels where you said ...when you want to use IDs that are different from the property expressions you want the model to work on, i assume that you are refering to a scenario where you are using a CompoundPropertyModel but you require the component to be populated from a different source other than the model set for the parent..e.g. add(new RequiredTextField (login.userName),new PropertyModel(person,username)); Yeah. Like with add(new TextField(someRandomComponentId, new PropertyModel(person, firstName)); Eelco - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Wicket-Model---A-very-simple-question-tf4668214.html#a13337090 Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
