On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i think we can release an alpha1 of 2.0
Fair enough, though the DatePicker needs to be moved out of extensions.
we havent already? was that only in 1.x?
we need to create a roadmap
On 12/8/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
i think we can release an alpha1 of 2.0
Fair enough, though the DatePicker needs to be moved out of extensions.
we need to create a roadmap for 1.3 on the wiki and mark what features are
already in and what are not
JIRA can do this for us
i think we can release an alpha1 of 2.0
i dont know about 1.3
we need to create a roadmap for 1.3 on the wiki and mark what features are
already in and what are not
-igor
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All,
Woudn't it be great if we could release our current progre
All,
Woudn't it be great if we could release our current progress as a
development build into the wild, and validate our progress on
licensing issues?
I think we could best address this by performing a milestone release,
which doesn't promise API stability, or bug-free operation, but will
be cle
patch is in to migrate the id of the replaced component to the replacing one
-igor
On 11/26/06, Jean-Baptiste Quenot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
I notice after upgrading from wicket 1.2 to current wicket-1.x
that replaceWith() combined with an AjaxRequestTarget does not
work anymo
hrm, i dont see how this can happen.
once an id is created for a component that component keeps it for its entire
lifetime - it is cached in the component's metadata.
the counter is also nontransient so it keeps its value as long as the page
is alive.
can you recreate it using wicket tester?
-
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
After deleting some heated, unsent messages (never post when angry, a
very wise blogger told me), taking some time thinking about other
stuff, I see that I misinterpreted your message. I'm sorry I misread
you, I'm sorry I accused you of mal-
* Igor Vaynberg:
> define "reliably". markupid should never be used by anything
> other then wicket - we have never guaranteed its stability. did
> you ever create the rfe to have the id migrated when components
> are replaced? that is the only usecase i can think of where we
> need to wor
define "reliably". markupid should never be used by anything other then
wicket - we have never guaranteed its stability. did you ever create the rfe
to have the id migrated when components are replaced? that is the only
usecase i can think of where we need to worry about the id being stable so
tha
After deleting some heated, unsent messages (never post when angry, a
very wise blogger told me), taking some time thinking about other
stuff, I see that I misinterpreted your message. I'm sorry I misread
you, I'm sorry I accused you of mal-intent. My sincerest apologies,
the whiskey is on me with
* Igor Vaynberg:
> our replace methods should migrate the id imho. please add an rfe.
Back to this. Your change to the generation of markup ids in
branch 1.x does not work when a Page is restored from the session:
the auto-increment id returns 0.
The usecase is this:
MyPage has an embedded For
Hi Martijn,
Nice excercise. As a user of Wicket, I'd say:
Which one gets precedent? The modifier or onComponentTag?
either modifier or neither (an exception).
The modifier is added later and provides a one-time way to adapt an
existing component.
Letting the component have precedence is weird
Just as a mental exercise, what will happen when we have this:
foo
new AjaxLink(this, "foo") {
@Override protected void onComponentTag(...) {
super.onComponentTag(...);
tag.put("onclick", "alert('foo1');");
}
}.add(new SimpleAttributeModifier("onclick", "alert('bar1');"));
W
and that can easily be expressed with a
+0 i dont like it but not enough to block
-igor
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just doing it as the manual says :) If you get 3 times -0.5 votes,
that may be a strong indicator that it is not the way to go. IIUC part
of voting
Just doing it as the manual says :) If you get 3 times -0.5 votes,
that may be a strong indicator that it is not the way to go. IIUC part
of voting is the ability to disagree, either mildly, strongly, or even
unresolvable. This is reflected by the analog votes.
In this case, I don't want to block
that has got to be one of the most idiotic things i have ever seen.
so what does this mean?
+1 -0.5 -0.5 -0.5 ? does that mean the vote doesnt pass? cause when you add
them up you get a -0.5
can i vote?
-
0.
From:
+0: 'I don't feel strongly about it, but I'm okey with this.'
-0: 'I won't get in the way, but I'd rather we didn't do this.'
-0.5: 'I don't like this idea, but I can't find any rational
justification for my feelings.'
++1: 'Wow! I like this! Let's do it!'
-0.9: 'I really don't like this, b
lets Math.floor() martijn's vote :)
-igor
On 12/7/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
can i vote 0.7 for and 0.3 against? my brain cant do
> floating point math!
simple, thats 0.4 for it!
:)
johan
there are a lot of serialization problems now.
And those show up because of our SecondLevelCache that is saving files.
I don't think those are meant to happen..
johan
On 12/7/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
are you sure those arent tests that test for failure? :)
somehow our log
can i vote 0.7 for and 0.3 against? my brain cant do
floating point math!
simple, thats 0.4 for it!
:)
johan
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/7/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another example is Link with a label inside. I'm starting to get
> irritated with the fact that even though a label rendering was
> requested as part of it's default behavior, and at l
On 12/7/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Another example is Link with a label inside. I'm starting to get
irritated with the fact that even though a label rendering was
requested as part of it's default behavior, and at least some people
were pro that, it ended in a stale mate again
+1
BTW I just created the issue in JIRA, so that we won't forget:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-150
--
Jean-Baptiste Quenot
aka John Banana Qwerty
http://caraldi.com/jbq/
+0
as i said, imho we need a better programming model
-igor
On 12/6/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think using final for the onComponentTag and onComponentTagBody
methods have served their purposes fine during our wild two years of
development, but our core components are n
[ X ] yes, make all onComponentTag and onComponentTagBody methods of
the standard components in core non-final. This does leave the door
open for specific components to not adhere to that - I'm not proposing
a new standard - but if this wins we would remove final for most of em
[ ] no, leave the
So I have 2 binding +1, 1 non-binding +1 and 1 abstain? Can I have a
couple more votes please?
Eelco
On 12/7/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please vote:
[ x ] yes, make all onComponentTag and onComponentTagBody methods of
the standard components in core non-final. This does
This:
add(new RequiredTextField("password", new
PropertyModel(properties,
"password"))
{
protected final void onComponentTag(final
ComponentTag tag)
{
are you sure those arent tests that test for failure? :)
somehow our logging got turned on again? it was off by default so you
wouldnt see the stacktraces during tests
-igor
On 12/7/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
There are a couple of unit test failing (but i don't see
take a look at our Start classes in projects like wicket-examples.
you use that class to start embedded jetty from your ide in debug mode and
that enables hot-swap in the jvm that can handle a lot of the code changes
without having to restart the server.
-igor
On 12/7/06, edward durai <[EMAIL
the problem with opening up all of them is that it is not clear what the
methods do, or how to override them (call super, and if so first or last?)
if you look at a component - and imagine you have no source code - how do
you know what it does in oncomponent* methods? these are internal
implement
Please vote:
[ x ] yes, make all onComponentTag and onComponentTagBody methods of
the standard components in core non-final. This does leave the door
open for specific components to not adhere to that - I'm not proposing
a new standard - but if this wins we would remove final for most of em
Eelc
wtf is a 0.5 vote? can i vote 0.7 for and 0.3 against? my brain cant do
floating point math!
/me kicks martijn in the ball
-igor
On 12/7/06, Martijn Dashorst <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A lot of people have asked in the past for a component interface and
we said no (until OSGi came with a goo
Hi,
There are a couple of unit test failing (but i don't see them really
reported as failing i think..)
but there are a lot of stack traces like this:
=== wicket.markup.html.header.testing2.TestExtendedPage2 ===
java.io.NotSerializableException: wicket.WicketMessageAttributeTest
at java.io.O
usually your IDE checks the java files for correctness (at least does
netbeans and eclipse so), the HTML templates can only be tested by wicket
but when you have dev mode and turn of caching these are rereloaded as soon
as you put a new one in... furthermore, i dont see a problem in sending a
resta
Hi experts,
I am using Wicket with Tomcat Server.
How to tested manually without using tomcat. because if change wicket java
file, i should re start the tomcat. so i want check the design view of
wicket page manually without using tomcat. Is it possible?
Thanks for replying.
Edward
--
View t
A lot of people have asked in the past for a component interface and
we said no (until OSGi came with a good reason, and even then). Just
only asking for opening up is not a good reason to do so IMO.
A good reason I can come up with for removing final from the
onComponentTag method is to reduce t
I'm not proposing to ease up on final in general, though I think using
finals aggressively makes more sense when the project is taking shape
and less so when things got more stabilized. Components like Link,
TextField, CheckBox, ImageButton are components people regularly ask
about why they can't
37 matches
Mail list logo
