of course i dont mind. -igor
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 12:39 AM, Erik van Oosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for clarifying limitation no 2, I had not though of this. Indeed in > my usecase this is not a problem. > 'Limitation' no 1 is quite intentional. > > If you don't mind, I've also added this comment to the article. > > Regards, > Erik. > > > Igor Vaynberg wrote: >> >> while this might work for your usecase this will pretty much break >> things. the version number is in the url for a reason. >> >> 1) it completely kills the backbutton for that page. since the url >> remains the same the browser wont record your actions in the history. >> based on what you are trying to do this may or may not be a bad thing. >> >> 2) even if you manage to get the back button working this will >> completely kill applications that use any kind of panel replacement >> because you no longer have the version information in the url. you >> have a page with panel A, you click a link and it is swapped with >> panel B. go back, click a link on A and you are hosed because wicket >> will look for the component you clicked on panel B instead of A. >> >> in all the applications ive written there was at least a moderate >> amount of panel replacement going on. one of the applications i worked >> on had the majority of its navigation consist of panel replacement. so >> i dont think this is a good idea. >> >> -igor >> >> > > > -- > Erik van Oosten > http://www.day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.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]
