yeah i am also completely lost at the momentCan somebody start from the beginning again?johan:)On 3/31/06, Martijn Dashorst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:And now my HEAD hurts, or was it head HURTS? :-)
MartijnOn 3/31/06, Gwyn Evans
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Yes, that's what I was meaning by the last
head is for cvs, trunk is for svn :)-IgorOn 4/1/06, Johan Compagner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
yeah i am also completely lost at the momentCan somebody start from the beginning again?
johan:)On 3/31/06, Martijn Dashorst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:And now my HEAD hurts, or was it head HURTS? :-)
Surely SVN's HEAD is exactly the same as CVS's HEAD, in that they both
refer to the latest revision in the particular branch that you're
working?
In both cases you need to specify the branch, which might be trunk
(svn) or the main trunk (cvs)...
Or are you just using head to refer to for what
svn dir called trunk is usually where the main branch is. cvs had no dir like this because tags/branches were treated differently. in svn tags and branches are treated like folders just like the main branch dir.so if you say i checked something into head in cvs, svn analogous would be i checked it
Yes, that's what I was meaning by the last bit of my previous email -
it just comes down to different shorthand for the main CVS development
branch.
My issue was that saying you checked into head is reasonably
unambiguious whereas if I said to /get/ something from head, the
question is did I mean
Except it's more complex than that, in that svn still has HEAD for the
revisions, with trunk just being the conceptual root from which
branches split.
/Gwyn
On 29/03/06, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
head is for cvs, trunk is for svn :)
-Igor
On 3/29/06, Arto Arffman [EMAIL
what do you mean?we have wicket top level: /svnroot/wicketthen under wicket we havewicket/brancheswicket/labelswicket/trunkso trunk is analogous to cvs head-Igor
On 3/29/06, Gwyn Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except it's more complex than that, in that svn still has HEAD for therevisions, with
it should and i thought i recently fixed it, are you working off trunk?-IgorOn 3/28/06, Arto Arffman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:ShouldonAttach() be called when ajax is used? (using latest head)
If so I'll dig deeper...
/arto
OK, I'll check if it's my mistake or is there really a bug.
(latest head, don't know what off trunk means)
2006/3/29, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
it should and i thought i recently fixed it, are you working off trunk?
-Igor
On 3/28/06, Arto Arffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
head is for cvs, trunk is for svn :)-IgorOn 3/29/06, Arto Arffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, I'll check if it's my mistake or is there really a bug.
(latest head, don't know what off trunk means)
2006/3/29, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
it should and i thought i recently fixed it, are you
I think it's mistake. I was relying on Page's onAttach(). I suppose its only those components that get rendered, am I rigth?
Funny though, Page.onDetach() is called, but Page.onAttach() is not.
2006/3/29, Arto Arffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
hmm, i'm using svnroot/wicket/trunk/wicket, if that's what
yeah, page.onattach will not be called, only the components that are added to the target.page.ondetach gets called at the end of any request cycle, i dont think its a problem because unless the page has been attached it should be a noop, and its a good safety net.
-IgorOn 3/29/06, Arto Arffman
Yes, that's the way it should be. First it sounded a bit unconsistent but there could be situations where page.onDetach() needs to be called. eg. if one of the rendered components uses page's model. On the other hand, they could use for example form's model through compound model. Is onDetach()
yes, the page will cascade ondetach() down its hierarchy.-IgorOn 3/29/06, Arto Arffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:Yes, that's the way it should be. First it sounded a bit unconsistent but there could be situations where
page.onDetach() needs to be called. eg. if one of the rendered components uses
hmm, i'm using svnroot/wicket/trunk/wicket, if that's what you mean
2006/3/29, Arto Arffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, I'll check if it's my mistake or is there really a bug.
(latest head, don't know what off trunk means)
2006/3/29, Igor Vaynberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
it should and i thought i
yep, thats trunkOn 3/29/06, Arto Arffman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
hmm, i'm using svnroot/wicket/trunk/wicket, if that's what you mean
2006/3/29, Arto Arffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
OK, I'll check if it's my mistake or is there really a bug.
(latest head, don't know what off trunk means)
2006/3/29,
Are you working on CVS HEAD? I know Eelco, Johan and I has been busy
with discussing and changing the request handling and render process. I
don't know whether this is the cause for your question.
Do you reference somewhere in your construction code a getObject() or
getModelObject() method?
I'm working from CVS HEAD a couple of weeks back. I am going to upgrade
to CVS HEAD today and I'll get back to you.
Thanks!
Jonathan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-05-06 10:42:28 AM
Are you working on CVS HEAD? I know Eelco, Johan and I has been busy
with discussing and changing the request
onAttach is called whenever the object is needed
so if it is called then somehow it is asked for.
johan
Jonathan Carlson wrote:
I'm working from CVS HEAD a couple of weeks back. I am going to upgrade
to CVS HEAD today and I'll get back to you.
Thanks!
Jonathan
There is only one rule for attachement: whenever a model object is
needed, and the model is /not/ attached yet (cq was detached), it is
attached.
Everthing happens in AbstractDetachableModel. It has a boolean:
/**
* Transient flag to prevent multiple detach/attach scenario. We need to
20 matches
Mail list logo
