Have you tried this out using load testing? You are creating a new
class every time you create a model. Have you run out of permgen
space?
On 2/26/08, Sebastiaan van Erk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Well, there's a problem with normal PropertyModels (or
> CompoundPropertyModels).
>
> For example, if you have the following textfield:
>
> TextField tf = new TextField("name", new PropertyModel(customer,
> "customerName"));
>
> Then a refactor of the customerName property (and the getCustomerName()
> method) in an IDE such as Eclipse or NetBeans will *silently* break the
> above code, which you will discover only at runtime...
>
> The proxy based approach solves exactly this problem.
>
> Regards,
>
> Sebastiaan
>
>
>
>
> atul singh wrote:
> > I feel this approach does NOT solve a problem.....Its just an alternative
> ..
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> We've reworked the implementation a bit,it works like this:
> >>
> >>
> >> SafePropertyModel<Person> p = new SafePropertyModel<Person>(new Person());
> >> TextField field = new TextField("name", p.bind(p.property
> >> ().getFirstName()));
> >>
> >> It's attached to the JIRA issue:
> >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/WICKET-1327
> >>
> >> -Matej
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> Matej Knopp wrote:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Sebastiaan van Erk
> >>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> >> Matej Knopp wrote:
> >>> >> > model.getFirstName() can't really return IModel, if
> >>> >> > Customer.getFirstName() returns string.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Anyway, I like the idea, but I don't like the syntax. instead of
> >> one
> >>> >> > line [add(new TextField("id", model).setRequred(true)) ] you have
> >> now
> >>> >> > three separate lines.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > So I was thinking of something more like
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > SafePropertyModel<Customer> model = new
> >> SafePropertyModel<Customer>(customer);
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > add(new TextField("tf", model.bind(model.proxy
> >> ().getCustomerName()
> >>> >> > )).setRequired(true));
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > This way you can have it one one line.
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > -Matej
> >>> >>
> >>> >> So proxy() returns a Customer proxy?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> And model.bind() takes an Object argument (considering we don't
> >> know in
> >>> >> advance what type getCustomerName() returns)... What about
> >> primitive
> >>> >> types? Overload bind() for those as well?
> >>> > Well, the return object is not important at all. What is important is
> >>> > the getCustomerName() call. That marks somewhere in the model that
> >>> > last accessed property was called "customerName". and then
> >> immediately
> >>> > after this model.bind takes this information.
> >>>
> >>> OK, that's what I described. :-) And I was being stupid with respect to
> >>> the overloading. If bind takes an object as argument, then overloading
> >>> will not be necessary due to autoboxing. :-)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >> And the call to getCustomerName() has the side effect of setting a
> >> model
> >>> >> object somewhere (e.g., in an instance field of model) which
> >>> >> model.bind() can subsequently return?
> >>> > Model bind will return a model (variation of propertymodel probably).
> >>> > It will take the information that getCustomerName call on proxy
> >>> > provided.
> >>>
> >>> Ok, so the proxy remembers which getter was called last, and you use
> >>> that to construct the model in bind(). Of course.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >> Very interesting. I don't like the proxy() method name though. If
> >> you
> >>> >> call it something like property() it will look more like you're
> >> binding
> >>> >> to a property of Customer:
> >>> > Well, the naming can certainly be improved. I'm not sure about
> >>> > "property()" though. Well, we can discuss this more anyway.
> >>> >> model.bind(model.property().getCustomerName())
> >>>
> >>> Neither am I. :-) For one, it's quite long. But on the other hand, you
> >>> do bind to a model property, and so it reads ok. I think that proxies
> >>> should be "invisible" for general users, so they shouldn't have to
> >>> understand the magic going on here, nor that proxies are involved.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >> VERY neat idea though... :-)
> >>> > Thanks.
> >>>
> >>> What I really like about this solution is that it can be implemented
> >>> completely separately from wicket-core, so you can just put it in it's
> >>> own project. :-)
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Sebastiaan
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> > -Matej
> >>> >> Regards,
> >>> >> Sebastiaan
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Fri, Feb 8, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Johan Compagner <
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> >> >> don't worry about creating the models
> >>> >> >> That will happen anyway in 1.3 (that needs to be done for
> >> example to get the
> >>> >> >> right object especially when we generify stuff)
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> see CompoundPropertyModel.wrapOnInheritance()
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> joan
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Feb 8, 2008 5:41 PM, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> > Interesting. So
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > model.getFirstName()
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > would return a PropetyModel based on the results of
> >> proxy.eval()? If
> >>> >> >> > I understand you correctly that creates many models (one per
> >>> >> >> > component) instead of reusing a single model, but that may
> >> well not be
> >>> >> >> > the end of the world. Or does getFirstName() return a
> >> CompoundModel
> >>> >> >> > that is properly bound this this component? Intriguing none
> >> the less.
> >>> >> >> > I hadn't considered this option, but I'm going to play with
> >> it a bit.
> >>> >> >> > I rather like that direction.
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > On Feb 8, 2008 8:29 AM, Johan Compagner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > > i try to look at this this weekend, but i have a quick
> >> question
> >>> >> >> > > I find it a bit verbose can't it be a bit shorter like this
> >> (just an
> >>> >> >> > > example)
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > > SharedPropertyModel<Customer> model = new
> >>> >> >> > > SharedPropertyModel<Customer>(customer);
> >>> >> >> > > this.setModel(model);
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > > FormComponent firstName = new
> >> CustomerNameField("firstName",
> >>> >> >> > > model.getFirstName()).setRequired(true);
> >>> >> >> > > add(firstName);
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > > where getFirstName() returns the model
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > > johan
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > > On Feb 6, 2008 6:57 PM, Scott Swank <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > > > One of our more clever developers created a
> >> CompoundPropertyModel that
> >>> >> >> > > > uses a cglib proxy to strongly bind the mutators to the
> >> model. It
> >>> >> >> > > > looks like this:
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > SharedPropertyModel<Customer> model = new
> >>> >> >> > > > SharedPropertyModel<Customer>(customer);
> >>> >> >> > > > this.setModel(model);
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > FormComponent firstName = new
> >>> >> >> > > > CustomerNameField("firstName").setRequired(true);
> >>> >> >> > > > model.bind(firstName).to().getFirstName();
> >>> >> >> > > > add(firstName);
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > FormComponent lastName = new
> >>> >> >> > > > CustomerNameField("lastName").setRequired(true);
> >>> >> >> > > > model.bind(lastName).to().getLastName();
> >>> >> >> > > > add(lastName);
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > FormComponent addr1 = new
> >>> >> >> > > > AddressField("address1").setRequired(true);
> >>> >> >> > > > model.bind
> >> (addr1).to().getAddress().getAddress1();
> >>> >> >> > > > add(addr1);
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > FormComponent addr2 = new
> >> AddressField("address2");
> >>> >> >> > > > model.bind
> >> (addr2).to().getAddress().getAddress2();
> >>> >> >> > > > add(addr2);
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > FormComponent city = new
> >> CityField("city");
> >>> >> >> > > > model.bind
> >> (city).to().getAddress().getCity();
> >>> >> >> > > > add(city);
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > We're happy to share if folk like this approach. N.B.
> >> that the .to()
> >>> >> >> > > > call is for readability rather than out of any necessity.
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > Cheers,
> >>> >> >> > > > Scott
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > > --
> >>> >> >> > > > Scott Swank
> >>> >> >> > > > reformed mathematician
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> >> >> > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > > >
> >>> >> >> > >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> > --
> >>> >> >> > Scott Swank
> >>> >> >> > reformed mathematician
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> >> >> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> >> >> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >> >
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Resizable and reorderable grid components.
> >> http://www.inmethod.com
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
