I reproduced the issue in the quickstart attached to WICKET-4488.
On 04/04/2012 3:44 PM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
Hi Bertrand,
Did you verify that ? If yes and you have a quickstart then create a ticket.
There are no tickets from this discussion so far.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bertrand G
Hi Bertrand,
Did you verify that ? If yes and you have a quickstart then create a ticket.
There are no tickets from this discussion so far.
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bertrand Guay-Paquet
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there a JIRA issue tracking this "render wrong page based on page
> version" proble
Hi,
Is there a JIRA issue tracking this "render wrong page based on page
version" problem? I'm very interested in this issue since sharing links
to stateful pages containing a page version is essentially broken.
Regards,
Bertrand
On 20/03/2012 12:45 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20,
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 2:53 PM, armhold wrote:
> Martin wrote:
>
>> HomePageMapper is explicitly registered in SystemMapper (the default
>> compound root mapper). The resource mapper example in
>> wicket-examples also mounts custom home mapper.
>
> Thanks Martin. I managed to get something worki
Martin wrote:
> HomePageMapper is explicitly registered in SystemMapper (the default
> compound root mapper). The resource mapper example in
> wicket-examples also mounts custom home mapper.
Thanks Martin. I managed to get something working based on
this. Here's a gist, in case anyone else is tr
Alle martedì 27 marzo 2012, Martin Grigorov ha scritto:
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Paolo wrote:
> > Alle giovedì 22 marzo 2012, Pointbreak ha scritto:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >
> >> > >
> >> > > No that is not what happens with NoVersionMount:
> >> > >
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 12:51 AM, Paolo wrote:
> Alle giovedì 22 marzo 2012, Pointbreak ha scritto:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>
>> > >
>> > > No that is not what happens with NoVersionMount:
>> > >
>
>> >
>> > i didnt say it was an ajax twistie
>>
>> Not being an
Alle giovedì 22 marzo 2012, Pointbreak ha scritto:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> > >
> > > No that is not what happens with NoVersionMount:
> > >
> >
> > i didnt say it was an ajax twistie
>
> Not being an ajax twistie link still doesn't add the ?1 to the url.
> N
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 7:08 PM, armhold wrote:
> I'm really grateful for this conversation, as I've been wondering the
> same question for a while now.
>
> Martin writes:
>
>> So far I didn't hear a good explanation why the page id causes you
>> troubles. Most of you are saying "it is ugly".
>
>
I'm really grateful for this conversation, as I've been wondering the
same question for a while now.
Martin writes:
> So far I didn't hear a good explanation why the page id causes you
> troubles. Most of you are saying "it is ugly".
Well it is kind of ugly. It is far less ugly than the 1.4-sty
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 15:46, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM, heikki wrote:
> > What's the point in refreshing if it returns exactly the same page as
> > before ?
>
> it allows components such as datatables and others that pull data from
> the database to refresh, while
i dont think we lost it. something in my app here made it work weird,
but i couldnt repro in a quickstart.
-igor
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:32 PM, Johan Compagner wrote:
> No this is bad, i agree with Igor, the latest page should be refreshed, not
> reset!
>
> By the way, the hybrid in 1.4 what w
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 3:39 PM, heikki wrote:
> What's the point in refreshing if it returns exactly the same page as
> before ?
it allows components such as datatables and others that pull data from
the database to refresh, while preserving other things.
think of it this way:
i have a page wi
What's the point in refreshing if it returns exactly the same page as
before ?
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:32 PM, Johan Compagner wrote:
> No this is bad, i agree with Igor, the latest page should be refreshed, not
> reset!
>
> By the way, the hybrid in 1.4 what we are using does look at the mou
No this is bad, i agree with Igor, the latest page should be refreshed, not
reset!
By the way, the hybrid in 1.4 what we are using does look at the mount if
the page doesn't exists any more. And we depend on that, am i reading it
right that we lost that in 1.5?
On Mar 22, 2012 11:12 PM, "Pointbrea
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 14:34, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:30, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >>
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:58 PM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:30, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pointbreak
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:30, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:30, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 12:05, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 11:42, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> O
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:37 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 10:56, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> On
I am not sure if this is related, but I noticed that occasionally when
I click on a link and expect page FOO to render I actually get
redirected to a completely unrelated page BAR. This happens when I
have a different tab that has page BAR open.
I am using Wicket 1.4.17.
Regards,
Alec
On Thu, M
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 10:20 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak
>> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 09:49, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> >> i t
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak
>> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> >> i think there is some confusion here. wicket 1.4 had page ids. it also
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012, at 08:23, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> >> i think there is some confusion here. wicket 1.4 had page ids. it also
> >> had page versions. in 1.5 we simply merged page id a
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> i think there is some confusion here. wicket 1.4 had page ids. it also
> had page versions. in 1.5 we simply merged page id and page version
> into the same variable - page id. this made things much simpler and
> also allowed some usecases that
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 7:59 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
>> i think there is some confusion here. wicket 1.4 had page ids. it also
>> had page versions. in 1.5 we simply merged page id and page version
>> into the same variable - page id. this made
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012, at 20:00, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> i think there is some confusion here. wicket 1.4 had page ids. it also
> had page versions. in 1.5 we simply merged page id and page version
> into the same variable - page id. this made things much simpler and
> also allowed some usecases that
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:52 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:42 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov
>>> wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg
>>
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg
>>> wrote:
indeed. we should check that the page pointed to
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg
>> wrote:
>>> indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
>>> to the mount, and create a new instance based
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg
> wrote:
>> indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
>> to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it
>> doesnt. jira please.
>
> This is alrea
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 10:50, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 10:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Pointbreak
> >> wrote:
> >> > Yes (sort of) except you don't need two users. Just bookma
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 10:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Pointbreak
>> wrote:
>> > Yes (sort of) except you don't need two users. Just bookmark a page with
>> > a version/id e.g. ?5, close the sessions, open
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012, at 10:40, Martin Grigorov wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Pointbreak
> wrote:
> > Yes (sort of) except you don't need two users. Just bookmark a page with
> > a version/id e.g. ?5, close the sessions, open a new session, do some
> > interaction so that another vers
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> Yes (sort of) except you don't need two users. Just bookmark a page with
> a version/id e.g. ?5, close the sessions, open a new session, do some
> interaction so that another version of the page with version/id ?5
> exists, and use that bookmar
Yes (sort of) except you don't need two users. Just bookmark a page with
a version/id e.g. ?5, close the sessions, open a new session, do some
interaction so that another version of the page with version/id ?5
exists, and use that bookmark. Stuff like that confuses users even if
they don't care abo
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg wrote:
> indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
> to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it
> doesnt. jira please.
This is already the case, no need of a ticket for this. If there is no
?5 then Wi
indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it
doesnt. jira please.
-igor
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Pointbreak
wrote:
> It's a problem when users bookmark it. Because ...?5 this session is an
> entirely
It's a problem when users bookmark it. Because ...?5 this session is an
entirely other page as ...?5 in another session tomorrow.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 11:53, Girts Ziemelis wrote:
>
>
> On 2012-03-19 02:46, Paolo wrote:
> > I support you! I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to pointbre
On 2012-03-19 02:46, Paolo wrote:
I support you! I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to pointbreak
in my MainApplication. And It will be my template for future app. But
to do it, I needed to understood the problem, check on google, read a
lot of pages, without found a solution, so post
Hi,
So far I didn't hear a good explanation why the page id causes you
troubles. Most of you are saying "it is ugly". In my previous company
we asked some of our users about
"wicket:interface=0:1:Something:else:9" and most of them said "I don't
care", "I haven't noticed it", etc... And we did this
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 5:27 PM, Chris Colman
wrote:
> I've been thinking about the new 1.5 page ID/versioning feature (which
> we disabled as soon as we discovered it) and wondering if there is
> actually a real world scenario for stateful pages that actually requires
> this functionality.
>
> I
>-Original Message-
>From: Paolo [mailto:irresistible...@gmail.com]
>> Thoughts?
>I support you!
>I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to pointbreak in my
>MainApplication.
>And It will be my template for future app.
>But to do it, I needed to understood the problem, check on google,
Alle lunedì 19 marzo 2012, Chris Colman ha scritto:
> I've been thinking about the new 1.5 page ID/versioning feature (which
> we disabled as soon as we discovered it) and wondering if there is
> actually a real world scenario for stateful pages that actually requires
> this functionality.
>
> I u
53 matches
Mail list logo
