Ok, IMHO it's a bug that wicket calls isVisible() after detachment.
Thus caching isVisible() is not needed.
Sven
----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
Von: Michael Sparer
Gesendet: 16.01.09 11:20 Uhr
An: users@wicket.apache.org
Betreff: Re: Re: Why you should not override isVisible
Nope, the problem is that the model object *possibly* gets reloaded if
isVisible is called after the cached object got detached - and that's what
started the whole bunch of messages
Michael
svenmeier wrote:
>
> What's taking so long in your isVisible() method?
>
>
> The model object should be cached, and is isPositive() so expensive?
>
> Sven
>
> ----- Ursprüngliche Nachricht -----
> Von: Scott Swank
> Gesendet: 16.01.09 02:06 Uhr
> An: users@wicket.apache.org
> Betreff: Re: Why you should not override isVisible
>
> We have implemented this, perhaps a dozen times or more across our
> application. For example, there are several payment options whose
> relevance is determined by whether the customer owes any money on
> their purchase (e.g. as opposed to using a gift card). These "total
> the order and determine visibility" methods were particular hot spots.
>
