.com.
>>
>>
>> -
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>
>
> --------------
y :) but oh well :)
> >
> > -igor
> >
>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16975470.html
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
>
r.vaynberg wrote:
>
> heh, even though we switched to int we are pretty close to running out
> of flag bits already :) but oh well :)
>
> -igor
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16975470.html
Sent from th
heh, even though we switched to int we are pretty close to running out
of flag bits already :) but oh well :)
-igor
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:07 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am just saying if we make such a thing, that i dont want state after
> the fact in a components
I am just saying if we make such a thing, that i dont want state after
the fact in a components. But i guess we can then better use a bit
i think we have a few left.
On 4/30/08, James Carman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wro
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:59 PM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First i dont want a boolen in the components that onFirstRender() is called.
> I want a boolean that it is not called. So in the constructor of
> component we set the flag and clear it when first rendered.
>
Are we thi
First i dont want a boolen in the components that onFirstRender() is called.
I want a boolean that it is not called. So in the constructor of
component we set the flag and clear it when first rendered.
Do remember that in onBeforeRende components/panels and all can be
created again but i think thi
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:24 AM, John Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This approach breaks a components encapsulation because the listener must be
> installed in the application. Even if IInitializers can be used to do this
> once it ads an extra complication to creating reusable comp
message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16961287.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ki page for this or if it is
> > mentioned in the api doc.
> >
>
> Is this feature of wicket useful? Damn yes. So it should be paraded about
> and
>
>
>
> Mr Mean wrote:
> >
> > But you have to be careful that the solution does not introduce
hods there
> is
> > a simple recommended way to do it.
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr Mean wrote:
> > >
> > >> Is this issue even documented yet? I will create a page for it but
> > >> waiting
> > >> u
has been around on the mailing list a few
> > times, so in a way it is self documented ;)
> > I honestly have not looked if there is wiki page for this or if it is
> > mentioned in the api doc.
> >
>
> Is this feat
-patterns.
>
Exactly why each use should not be left wondering how to approach the
problem themselves - if they even recognise it as a problem.
John
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16959777.html
Sent from the Wicket - User
it should be paraded about
and
Mr Mean wrote:
>
> But you have to be careful that the solution does not introduce other
> problems or more work for the more standard usecases or anti-patterns.
>
Exactly why each use should not be left
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> yes of course. you have to keep a boolean in the metadata to mark if
> the handler has been called already.
>
Ok, gotcha! I need to keep that metadata stuff in my head. That's a
nifty little trick for adding ad-hoc pro
yes of course. you have to keep a boolean in the metadata to mark if
the handler has been called already.
-igor
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:12 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > you can roll that, just use t
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:05 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> you can roll that, just use the beforerenderlistener you can install
> in the application subclass.
We just have to make sure we only initialize an instance one time.
The IComponentOnBeforeRenderListeners are called ever
you can roll that, just use the beforerenderlistener you can install
in the application subclass.
-igor
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:03 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 2008/4/28 Uwe Schäfer <[EMAIL PROTECT
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/4/28 Uwe Schäfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > James Carman schrieb:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Or, perhaps Wicket could add in some lifecycle method annotations?
> > >
> >
> > pleeease don´t!
> >
> > using annotat
2008/4/28 Uwe Schäfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> James Carman schrieb:
>
>
>
> > Or, perhaps Wicket could add in some lifecycle method annotations?
> >
>
> pleeease don´t!
>
> using annotations for this kind of lifecycle methods is a simple abuse of
> them. non-obvious order, inheritance etc... l
springbean is ok. although bends the rule rather then breaking it by
not depending on any state of the super class.
if we did it the other way then the dependencies would be null during
the constructor call, which is obviously something we want to avoid.
-igor
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:22 AM, J
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 8:31 AM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Oh! Nasty. I thought you guys were somehow waiting until the
> > Component was fully instantiated for this notification to occur. If
>
> Nope. One of the places where this is used, is for security
> (i
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 2:15 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How well did you test this?
>
> Only whipped it up very quickly (based on obviously wrong assumptions :).
>
>
> > Because i think the bigges
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:58 AM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How well did you test this?
Only whipped it up very quickly (based on obviously wrong assumptions :).
> Because i think the biggest problem here is that the
> IComponentInstantiationListener is invoked in the construc
How well did you test this?
Because i think the biggest problem here is that the
IComponentInstantiationListener is invoked in the constructor of
Component and thus before any childclass constructor has run.
Maurice
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 1:42 PM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 6:27 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, this would involve making up some rules about the order in which
> the parent class' initializer methods are invoked. A couple that come
> to mind:
>
> 1. There should only be one initializer method declared per c
2008/4/28 Uwe Schäfer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> James Carman schrieb:
>
>
>
> > Or, perhaps Wicket could add in some lifecycle method annotations?
> >
>
> pleeease don´t!
>
> using annotations for this kind of lifecycle methods is a simple abuse of
> them. non-obvious order, inheritance etc... l
James Carman schrieb:
Or, perhaps Wicket could add in some lifecycle method annotations?
pleeease don´t!
using annotations for this kind of lifecycle methods is a simple abuse
of them. non-obvious order, inheritance etc... lesson learned from
jpa,ejb3 etc...
cu uwe
--
THOMAS DAILY G
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 5:57 AM, James Carman
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Such an initialize method can easily be done by users them self with a
> > simple factory pattern. So why bloat our api with it?
>
> Could
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:55 PM, Maurice Marrink <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Such an initialize method can easily be done by users them self with a
> simple factory pattern. So why bloat our api with it?
Could one come up with their own interface which means they want
delayed intialization and
n.
Well depending on the solution you would yes, you are only describing
problems related to onXXX. a factory for instance does not have these
problems as it does not add the components it just create them. But
you have to be careful that the solution does not introduce other
problems or more work f
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 01:58:28PM -0700, John Patterson wrote:
>
> Note to self: don't post messages when half cut. But I have to break that
> rule just one more time
>
Heh, no problem. Been there once or twice myself...
jk
-
gNavigation.
For example, DefaultDataTable has no factory methods for creating custom
PagingNavigation
so I had to copy-paste it and change some minor parts of the class. But it
was very easy and I take
the default implementations as an example how to work with them.
S&S
--
View this messag
this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16918361.html
>
>
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-m
requirement to call super.onBeforeRender()
and so would be significantly better - especially if this is a common
pattern.
John
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16918361.html
Sent f
onent not being rendered if it is not
> visible? That is already the case with onBeforeRender(). How is this any
> more confusing?
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to
t our api with it?
>
What is confusing about the component not being rendered if it is not
visible? That is already the case with onBeforeRender(). How is this any
more confusing?
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16917466
ssages when half cut. But I have to break that
rule just one more time
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16917444.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
t;
> > onBeforeFirstRender() ? , onFirstRender() is ambiguous with its
> > relation to onbeforerender()
> >
>
> Does it need to be defined relative to onBeforeRender()? Isn't it enough to
> say onBeforeFirstRender() or onPageSetup() is called only once and before
foreRender()? Isn't it enough to
say onBeforeFirstRender() or onPageSetup() is called only once and before
rendering.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16916018.html
Sent from the Wicket
onBeforeFirstRender() ? , onFirstRender() is ambiguous with its
relation to onbeforerender()
-igor
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> We shouldnt call it onInitialize, onFirstRender is fine, onInitialize
> looks like a really after constructor call to
We shouldnt call it onInitialize, onFirstRender is fine, onInitialize
looks like a really after constructor call to me, but it is called
much later, if it is called (onvisible checks and so on)
On 4/26/08, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:17 AM, John Patterson <
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 4:17 AM, John Patterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Sorry, I did find a discussion which was related [1] which ended with Igor
> saying:
>
> "yes, but its also easy to fix. Just don't call any overridible methods
> inside constructors. And for everything else there is
John Patterson schrieb:
Thanks. So is this the way we should build all components that could be
extended? If so, how about adding an initialisation hook to avoid this
problem and the need to call super.onBeforeRender() (which I forgot recently
and took me a while to find)... and also to give it
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 04:46:11AM -0700, John Patterson wrote:
>
>
>
> John Krasnay wrote:
> >
> > This rule is too strict. Another way to avoid calling overridable
> > methods from the constructor is to use a model:
> >
>
> Models are fine for providing dynamic values but do not help you cu
type of link
to use in the component (as PagingNavigation allows)
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16912100.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive a
;
>
>
> Martijn Dashorst wrote:
> >
> > We have discussed this over and over on the list. Search the archives.
> > Short answer: NO.
> >
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http
s message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16911887.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For addition
nd. Or is
> >> >> there
> >> >> > > already a method that should be used to do this?
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > Thank
>> there
>> >> > > already a method that should be used to do this?
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Thanks,
>> >> > >
>> >> > > John
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > Just to be
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >
> >> > > John
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > Just to be a bit clearer
> >> >
> >> > class MySubclass extends WicketBaseclass
> >>
id, MyDomainObject parameter)
>> > {
>> > super(id);
>> > _parameter = parameter;
>> > }
>> >
>> > @Override
>> > protected Component overrideToCreateCustomComponent()
>> > {
>>
eateCustomComponent()
> > {
> > return new MyCustomisedCompopnent(_parameter.getSomething());
> > }
> > }
> >
> > So _parameter will always be null when overrideToCreateCustomComponent()
> is
> > called from the base class
parameter;
> }
>
> @Override
> protected Component overrideToCreateCustomComponent()
> {
> return new MyCustomisedCompopnent(_parameter.getSomething());
> }
> }
>
> So _parameter will always be null when overrideToCreateCustomComponent() is
l always be null when overrideToCreateCustomComponent() is
called from the base class
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16742891.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---
xtend. Or is there
already a method that should be used to do this?
Thanks,
John
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Alternative-method-to-initialise-page-tp16742636p16742636.html
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabbl
56 matches
Mail list logo