I was able to fix my issue by making sure that the home page was not mounted
to any coding strategy.  However, the / issue is still there, but I think I
can get around it with Apache.  Still this should be in the migration guide,
because both problems broke functionality that worked in 1.2

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 10:58 AM, Andrew Berman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So, I'm having a problem with Wicket in that it is ignoring query string
> parameters.  There are two problems.  Here is the use case for problem 1:
>
> 1.  Go to http://foo.com/yourapp?id=2
> 2.  In your application class override newRequestCycle and newSession and
> put breakpoints in there
> 3.  In either method you will never get the id.  It always comes out null.
>
> I looked in the WicketFilter code and there is all this URL manipulation
> with forward slash going on.  Why?  I compared this to WicketServlet in
> 1.2 and there is nothing about all this forward slash stuff.  So, if you
> change the url to http://foo.com/yourapp/?id=2 you do get the id.  That
> makes no sense.  This broke functionality from Wicket 1.2 and there is
> nothing about this stuff in the migration guide.
>
> So problem 2:
>
> 1.  Go to http://foo.com/yourapp/?id=2
> 2.  In your application class override newRequestCycle and newSession and
> put breakpoints in there
> 3.  In newRequestCycle, call session.invalidateNow();
> 4.  When it first hits newRequestCycle, you have the id.  But after it
> calls session.invalidateNow(), the WicketFilter redirects back to your
> homepage and goes back to newRequestCycle and then to newSession.  This
> second time it hits these methods, the id comes out null.
>
> Again, the WicketFilter code ignores query string params. Why?  Doesn't
> make sense and again broke functionality that was working in Wicket 1.2and 
> was never documented.  I have tried all the different
> IRequestTargetUrlCodingStrategies and none of them fix this problem.  It
> appears to be a problem in the WicketFilter code in ignoring query string
> params.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>

Reply via email to