+1 -----Original Message----- From: s...@meiers.net [mailto:s...@meiers.net] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 7:47 AM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Why you should not override isVisible
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. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
