Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

yeah, i agree. this is once place i got carried away with making things convenient. those particular convenience methods should go away. i'm a little less sure about getting rid of setResponsePage(), but from certain perspectives that would be better too. getRequestCycle().setResponsePage(...

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

I do agree with Johan's point. ...onSubmit() { getRequestCycle().setResponsePage(new MyPage()); } May be onSubmit is an exception as I don't feel similar about Session.get() and Application.get() Juergen On 8/20/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > getRequestCycle().setRes

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

> > getRequestCycle().setResponsePage(new MyPage()); > > is i think much better then saying > > RequestCycle.get().setResponsePage(new MyPage()); > > > in the first you are saying. Component get your request cycle where you > belong to. > > in the latter you just take something completely out of th

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

> I don't 'get' what someone will possibly understand better from having > getRequestCycle() everywhere in the Java class. If it is a problem of > understanding, then we need some serious extra documentation. > > And while you're at it, why not remove getRequestCycle() and > getSession() also? Requ

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

You have a point here. -Matej Johan Compagner wrote: > i agree. But in a onSubmit or onClick having to do that is shouldn't be > needed > > then > > getRequestCycle().setResponsePage(new MyPage()); > > is i think much better then saying > > RequestCycle.get().setResponsePage(new MyPage()); >

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

We do, yet I don't see what's wrong on Session.get() and RequestCycle.get(). These are universal and accessible from every place assuming wicket request is being processed. -Matej Johan Compagner wrote: > no not hiding in a sense of make them private or something > But more in a sense that deve

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

no not hiding in a sense of make them private or somethingBut more in a sense that developers don't have to call that normally.We hide the static access and the usage of a thread local for normal use.johan On 8/20/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Which ones? RequestCycle.get() and Session

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

Which ones? RequestCycle.get() and Session.get()? Don't you dare to hide those! :-) -Matej Johan Compagner wrote: > ohh forgot to mention. I don't like static access methods. Those if > needed (for threadlocals) > should be hidden as possible. > > johan > > > On 8/20/06, * Johan Compagner* <

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

ohh forgot to mention. I don't like static access methods. Those if needed (for threadlocals)should be hidden as possible.johanOn 8/20/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No we should hide the thread local access. That is prefectly fine.It is much more clear that all the things you do y

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

No we should hide the thread local access. That is prefectly fine.It is much more clear that all the things you do you do not on the component but on the request cycle.It just makes much more sense. just some setResponsePage() somewhere in the code in a component. What is that why call that on the

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

I think that Delegate is an appropiate pattern here, which is used in much of the convenience methods. One of the biggest problems Java is facing is the verbosity of the language. Removing these delegating methods will make reading the application methods a lot less clear. I don't 'get' what some

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

Yeah, that's a good point. In fact, we could deprecate them immediately (1.2); anything that will help users in future conversions. Eelco On 8/19/06, Gwyn Evans <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would depreciating them in 1.3 be worth considering, or is that a step too > far? > > /Gwyn > > On 19/08/

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

Would depreciating them in 1.3 be worth considering, or is that a step too far? /Gwyn On 19/08/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > yip also my sentiment.. Dont break api in 1.3 if it is not really needed (== > cleanup) > > johan > > > On 8/19/06, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

yip also my sentiment.. Dont break api in 1.3 if it is not really needed (== cleanup)johanOn 8/19/06, Eelco Hillenius < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:Yeah. Do it for 2.0. I'm not much in favor of doing this for 1.3. Weshould keep API for 1.3 minimal to make transition from 1.2. to 1.3. -something hopef

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

Yeah. Do it for 2.0. I'm not much in favor of doing this for 1.3. We should keep API for 1.3 minimal to make transition from 1.2. to 1.3. - something hopefully a lot of people will do - will be relatively painless. Eelco On 8/19/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > go ahead, i dare you

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

go ahead, i dare you!-IgorOn 8/19/06, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: yes if i have to clean up component, then i am really going to clean it up!!Then i will remove pretty much all those silly "redirect" methods..I personally never liked them from day one. Developers need to understand w

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

yes if i have to clean up component, then i am really going to clean it up!!Then i will remove pretty much all those silly "redirect" methods..I personally never liked them from day one. Developers need to understand what exactly happen. just calling in a onSubmit() setResponsePage(new MyPage()) o

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

+1 and this can get on the list for 1.3 as well IMO, or will this become a big api change? Martijn On 8/18/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is there any reason why urlfor calls are not synchronized between > requestcycle and component? i know component had some urlfor that were > co

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

hmm...sucks for johan cause he is now leading with +10 :)-IgorOn 8/18/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote:Yeah, but, you know, the 10 is binary, so it's only 2 decimal.So.. erm.. what I meant was only +4 decimal of course. :) -MatejIgor Vaynberg wrote:> matej since you feel so strongly about

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

Yeah, but, you know, the 10 is binary, so it's only 2 decimal. So.. erm.. what I meant was only +4 decimal of course. :) -Matej Igor Vaynberg wrote: > matej since you feel so strongly about it, at least 10 orders of > magnitude more then anyone else, why dont you implement it :) > > -Igor > >

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

matej since you feel so strongly about it, at least 10 orders of magnitude more then anyone else, why dont you implement it :)-IgorOn 8/18/06, Frank Bille <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +½On 8/18/06, Matej Knopp < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +10^10-MatejJohan Compagner wrote:> +10>> On 8/18/06, *Juergen

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

+½On 8/18/06, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +10^10-MatejJohan Compagner wrote:> +10>> On 8/18/06, *Juergen Donnerstag* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>> +1>> Juergen>> On 8/18/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:>  > Compon

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

+10^10 -Matej Johan Compagner wrote: > +10 > > On 8/18/06, *Juergen Donnerstag* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > +1 > > Juergen > > On 8/18/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Component's urlFor metho

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

+10On 8/18/06, Juergen Donnerstag <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: +1JuergenOn 8/18/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:> Component's urlFor methods are only convenience and they are a left> over from when we didn't have IRequestCycle I think. >> I'd be +1 for cleaning that up for 2.0.>> Eelco>

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

+1 Juergen On 8/18/06, Eelco Hillenius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Component's urlFor methods are only convenience and they are a left > over from when we didn't have IRequestCycle I think. > > I'd be +1 for cleaning that up for 2.0. > > Eelco > > > On 8/17/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Re: [Wicket-develop] urlfor funcs

Component's urlFor methods are only convenience and they are a left over from when we didn't have IRequestCycle I think. I'd be +1 for cleaning that up for 2.0. Eelco On 8/17/06, Igor Vaynberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is there any reason why urlfor calls are not synchronized between > reque