Sorry, my fault. It's already in.
-Matej
Frank Bille Jensen wrote:
> Thats one of mine? I'm positive it were in the patch I submitted.
>
> On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:20 +0200, Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
>> wicket has compile errors because MockPageWithLinkAndComponent is missing
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
Thats one of mine? I'm positive it were in the patch I submitted.
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 23:20 +0200, Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
> wicket has compile errors because MockPageWithLinkAndComponent is missing
>
> Juergen
>
> On 7/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi, as Frank has alread
wicket has compile errors because MockPageWithLinkAndComponent is missing
Juergen
On 7/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi, as Frank has already stated, it's not the tests that should be
> fixed. It is the AjaxRequestTarget code. I'm going to look at it right now.
>
> But maybe I sh
Hi, as Frank has already stated, it's not the tests that should be
fixed. It is the AjaxRequestTarget code. I'm going to look at it right now.
But maybe I should make some tests with header contribution, that would
make more sense.
I don't like the idea of storing more things in page. I just ca
On Thu, 2006-07-06 at 19:48 +0200, Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
> Matej, may I suggest you update the junit tests as well which are now
> failing due to the header changes. I think it is good practice to
> always run the tests before committing changes.
IMHO the test should fail, because it shouldn't
Matej, may I suggest you update the junit tests as well which are now
failing due to the header changes. I think it is good practice to
always run the tests before committing changes.
Juergen
On 7/6/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, it's either a bandwidth optimization or a m
Yeah, it's either a bandwidth optimization or a memory usage optimization.
Eelco
> I'm not sure I like that idea. It means we need to store even more
> data in the Page (or any of its components or behaviors) (= Session
> because of clusters). How to uniquely identify a header contributions
> w
On 7/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So do I. It is more complicated now, because we can't assume that the
> whole rendering is done within one thread / request.
why not? What has changed? The render process (when we iterate over
the components and print out the html into a Response
So do I. It is more complicated now, because we can't assume that the
whole rendering is done within one thread / request.
Maybe we need to store the status of contributions that were already
done somewhere in the page.
And in the beginning of full render of the page we always clean this
infor
I guess we than need to open up / or make more flexible the
HeaderContainer(?) which currently implements the logic to not render
certain headers multiple times.
Juergen
On 7/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, it doesn't replaces the DOM, it is adding elements.
>
> Avoiding
Actually, it doesn't replaces the DOM, it is adding elements.
Avoiding contributing same stuff multiple times is still something to be
solved. The current code just renders head of all components added to
ajax target which is definitely not something we want.
-Matej
Juergen Donnerstag wrote:
>
I've seen your initial code (actually the patch only) and it think it
is going in the right direction. A few ago I responded to a similar
question proposing a solution like you now implemented it. As the ajax
header response "replaces" the DOM it might not be a problem for ajax
components but rende
that is not a problemThe output goes to the HtmlHeaderContainer.getResponse() objectSo just make that a BufferedResponse so that you can get the string out of it.johan
On 7/6/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a reasonable way to render a header contribution of a component to a st
Is there a reasonable way to render a header contribution of a component
to a string? I'm asking, because looking at Component#renderHead, it
takes HtmlHeaderContainer as argument.
Juergen?
-Matej
Matej Knopp wrote:
> Matej Knopp wrote:
>> Adding both javascript and stylesheets seems to work,
Matej Knopp wrote:
> Adding both javascript and stylesheets seems to work, at least for
> non-inline javascript and css. Still have to test inline stuff.
I tested inline javascript, works well. Inline styles work too, but in
IE you have to use document.createStyleSheet for it to work.
I tested a
Adding both javascript and stylesheets seems to work, at least for
non-inline javascript and css. Still have to test inline stuff.
-Matej
Johan Compagner wrote:
> if you add css or javascript to the head of the page at runtime in a
> dynamic way
> is it then seen in the browser??
> We should fi
We (on ##wicet, Frank coded an example) just did that, and that seems
to work fine.
Eelco
On 7/5/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> if you add css or javascript to the head of the page at runtime in a dynamic
> way
> is it then seen in the browser??
> We should first test that.
>
>
if you add css or _javascript_ to the head of the page at runtime in a dynamic wayis it then seen in the browser??We should first test that.johanOn 7/5/06,
Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Hi
There's a known problem with head contribution of components, that arenot rendered when the whole pag
Hi
There's a known problem with head contribution of components, that are
not rendered when the whole page is (are hidden or not even part of
hierarchy), but are additionally rendered using an AJAX call.
The problem is, that while the body of the component is placed in the
page, the head contr
19 matches
Mail list logo
