Re: Shared Components
Despite frameworks as jsf, wicket manages lightweight components. It would be adding more complexity to something that is pretty simple. Furthermore, I don't think you will performance better. The important fact in any case is that the browser caches it. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ayodeji Aladejebi aladej...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Please any concept of shared components in Wicket. If I have a component that the content (model) will always be the same across all sessions and users, is there a wicket api approach for ensuring we only have one of such components throughout the application scope -- Aladejebi Ayodeji A., -- Fernando Wermus. www.linkedin.com/in/fernandowermus
Re: Shared Components
the complexity cost mentioned is too high - namely since a single component instance exists on application level all code you write for that component would have to be threadsafe. -igor On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Fernando Wermus fernando.wer...@gmail.com wrote: Despite frameworks as jsf, wicket manages lightweight components. It would be adding more complexity to something that is pretty simple. Furthermore, I don't think you will performance better. The important fact in any case is that the browser caches it. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ayodeji Aladejebi aladej...@gmail.comwrote: Hi, Please any concept of shared components in Wicket. If I have a component that the content (model) will always be the same across all sessions and users, is there a wicket api approach for ensuring we only have one of such components throughout the application scope -- Aladejebi Ayodeji A., -- Fernando Wermus. www.linkedin.com/in/fernandowermus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
RE: Shared Components
I don't understand the question. I may be viewing the same web page as you, but that doesn't mean we should share the same computer display monitor. If there are two copies of the display (yours and mine), then there should be two copies of the display's components. What's wrong with just building the model for each user's component around the same application-scoped Java POJO? (Of course, you might have to synchronize concurrent access to it, but that's just standard Java.) On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ayodeji Aladejebi aladej...@gmail.comwrote: Please any concept of shared components in Wicket. If I have a component that the content (model) will always be the same across all sessions and users, is there a wicket api approach for ensuring we only have one of such components throughout the application scope - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Shared Components
For example, I have a Label that displays data using a ReadOnlyModel. That data will NEVER be written to by any user. they only read from it EVER. ONLY ONE user can write to it (admin maybe) Thats what I mean. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Frank Silbermann frank.silberm...@fedex.com wrote: I don't understand the question. I may be viewing the same web page as you, but that doesn't mean we should share the same computer display monitor. If there are two copies of the display (yours and mine), then there should be two copies of the display's components. What's wrong with just building the model for each user's component around the same application-scoped Java POJO? (Of course, you might have to synchronize concurrent access to it, but that's just standard Java.) On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ayodeji Aladejebi aladej...@gmail.comwrote: Please any concept of shared components in Wicket. If I have a component that the content (model) will always be the same across all sessions and users, is there a wicket api approach for ensuring we only have one of such components throughout the application scope - To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
Re: Shared Components
is this a performance bottleneck for you? because until you show me how having 1000 of these labels is stalling your cpu or causing memory problems in a profiler the rest of this conversation is pretty pointless. -igor On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Ayodeji Aladejebi aladej...@gmail.com wrote: For example, I have a Label that displays data using a ReadOnlyModel. That data will NEVER be written to by any user. they only read from it EVER. ONLY ONE user can write to it (admin maybe) Thats what I mean. On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Frank Silbermann frank.silberm...@fedex.com wrote: I don't understand the question. I may be viewing the same web page as you, but that doesn't mean we should share the same computer display monitor. If there are two copies of the display (yours and mine), then there should be two copies of the display's components. What's wrong with just building the model for each user's component around the same application-scoped Java POJO? (Of course, you might have to synchronize concurrent access to it, but that's just standard Java.) On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Ayodeji Aladejebi aladej...@gmail.comwrote: Please any concept of shared components in Wicket. If I have a component that the content (model) will always be the same across all sessions and users, is there a wicket api approach for ensuring we only have one of such components throughout the application scope - 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
