Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-28 Thread Sven Meier
Hi Uwe, I wonder why your container is already calling session notifications, when the initialization of the Wicket filter hasn't finished yet. Please create a Jira issue with a quickstart. That will make it easier to come to a solution. Thanks Sven On 10/25/2013 11:39 PM, uwe schaefer

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-25 Thread Sven Meier
I think we have to improve Application#setPageMangerProvider(): public synchronized final void setPageManagerProvider(final IPageManagerProvider provider) { pageManagerProvider = provider; if (pageManager != null) { synchronized (this) {

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-25 Thread uwe schaefer
On 10/25/2013 09:39 AM, Sven Meier wrote: Hi Sven, I think we have to improve Application#setPageMangerProvider(): public synchronized final void setPageManagerProvider(final IPageManagerProvider provider) WDYT? better, but to my understanding, not quite there yet. while that helps

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-24 Thread uwe schaefer
On 22.10.2013 10:22, Sven Meier wrote: Hi Sven, currently there's no way to change the PageManager once it's fetched in Application#internalGetPageManager(). agreed. Do you have a stacktrace for the code triggering Application.getPageManagerProvider().get() ? Besides devutils I don't see

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-22 Thread Sven Meier
Hi Uwe, currently there's no way to change the PageManager once it's fetched in Application#internalGetPageManager(). Do you have a stacktrace for the code triggering Application.getPageManagerProvider().get() ? Besides devutils I don't see any call to this from Wicket. Regards Sven On

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-21 Thread Martin Grigorov
Hi, On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 9:50 PM, uwe schaefer u...@codesmell.de wrote: On 18.10.2013 09:03, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi Martin, Can you give more details about the setup and the problem ? of course. we use two Tomcat6 with clustering enabled (Backup-Manager) with apache in front

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-21 Thread uwe schaefer
On 10/21/2013 09:07 AM, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi Martin, I hope the ticket will describe better what and the damage is done actually means. sorry if i was unclear. looks like i got lost in the details. the actual damage is: there is a Thread started and associated with a

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-18 Thread Martin Grigorov
Hi, Can you give more details about the setup and the problem ? On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 11:35 PM, uwe schaefer u...@codesmell.de wrote: On 14.10.2013 21:41, uwe schaefer wrote: could it also be a racecondition with clustering and public void sessionUnbound(final String sessionId)

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-18 Thread uwe schaefer
On 18.10.2013 09:03, Martin Grigorov wrote: Hi Martin, Can you give more details about the setup and the problem ? of course. we use two Tomcat6 with clustering enabled (Backup-Manager) with apache in front using sticky sessions. when redeploying, we restart tomcat. Now when one tomcat

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-17 Thread uwe schaefer
On 14.10.2013 21:41, uwe schaefer wrote: could it also be a racecondition with clustering and public void sessionUnbound(final String sessionId) being called before init() returns? after further investigation it is pretty clear, that the above race condition happens (at least on tomcat6)

unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-14 Thread uwe schaefer
Hi we seem to face a little problem here with wicket 6.11: Application.class:708 setPageManagerProvider(new DefaultPageManagerProvider(this)); sets the default provider here. Lateron [during init()] we replace this one by using the snippet from HttpSessionDataStore's javadocs:

Re: unwanted DefaultPageManagerProvider

2013-10-14 Thread uwe schaefer
On 14.10.2013 21:10, uwe schaefer wrote: Now for the question: what is the suggested way to register a PageManagerProvider BEFORE anyone asks for it? PS: rather than an initializer being the culprit, could it also be a racecondition with clustering and public void sessionUnbound(final