> i dont see why we should support this. > if you expect the user to mess with your urls then you should either leave > it as a query string or use indexed coding strat. imho we should fail early > - imagine looking at logs and trying to figure out wtf that url came from. > could it be a wicket encoding problem? user messed with it? etc etc.
I don't think it's always bad if people mess with parameters, especially not when it concerns paths like Dariusz mentioned. To me, it is natural to directly play with a path, though I wouldn't play with parameters if they come in the form ?foo=bar. I would prefer Wicket to be more forgiving and let users decide whether they have enough information to process a request. > the code to support this wouldnt be hairy at all - just remove the check and > see if param is missing and add it as ""...hmm or maybe better to add it as > null? see what i mean. Yeah, that's the kind of hairyness I meant. Then again, that could be just a setting. Eelco --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
