And even with that check it will not work. If you open a new tab then the first page wicket will render when you type in an url will be the defaul pagemap. Only on the first page rendered we know that we have to redirect. So that first page will be blocked. The only thing that could maybe help is never use the defaul pagemap. So always use from the first page on a differnt one. And if you then see that a defaul pagemap request is done in your page, create a new pagemap and redirect again.
On 8/29/08, Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Only if multi window support is on (which is off by default with > secondlevelcachesessionstore). The multiwindow support is more or less > a hack, because HTTP doesn't really provide any means to detect > browser windows/tabs. > > -Matej > > On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:28 AM, Jan Stette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I agree, that's a better long-term fix. Even so, isn't it wrong that the >> request from a new window is locked waiting on the other window's page map >> - >> I would have thought the new window should have ended up with its own page >> map? >> >> Regards, >> Jan >> >> >> 2008/8/29 Matej Knopp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> the long running process should be executed in separate thread. You >>> can make wicket periodically poll for result (via ajax). It is >>> generally not a good idea to run action that potentially can take long >>> time to complete from a request thread. >>> >>> -Matej >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Jan Stette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > I'm having a problem with the following scenario: >>> > >>> > 1. A user logs into our Wicket application and starts using it. >>> > 2. The user clicks on a link which kicks off a potentially >>> > long-running >>> > operation. >>> > 3. While getting bored with waiting for this to complete, the user >>> copies >>> > the URL from her browser into another tab or window. >>> > >>> > Unfortunately, at this stage, the second window is locked and times out >>> with >>> > a message "pagemap is still locked after one minute". >>> > Should this work? Stepping through the second request in the debugger, >>> it >>> > appears that it this request has a page map name = null, as has the >>> previous >>> > request ( in the long running thread). So they seem to pick up the >>> > same >>> > page map. Presumably this is wrong; multiple windows should each have >>> their >>> > unique page map? Or does the magic that detects new windows hence new >>> page >>> > maps to be created break down in cases like this? >>> > >>> > Regards, >>> > Jan >>> > >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
