I like that idea!
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]>wrote: > it may be helpful to create <wicket:context> analog of <wicket:link>, > we already have the framework for getting the path prefix to get to > context path. > > this is of course only useful for application-specific resources as > those will not be reused across projects. in our case our SA extracts > the war and copies everything but WEB-INF to apache so all those > static application resources can be served there. > > -igor > > On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 2:41 AM, Martijn Dashorst > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Why wouldn't it be a viable solution? It gives you the opportunity to > > let the resources be served by your container, which should be > > speedier than letting wicket handle it (such requests are filtered > > through and go to your container). > > > > The relative paths are just that: relative, and they always map to the > > absolute same resource URI. In fact, they are more stable than serving > > things from your classpath, as those resources are served from the > > path /context/resources/...., and if we decide to call that path > > /context/foobar/.... all your reasoning about stability goes out the > > window. > > > > Martijn > > > > On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 6:38 PM, Luther Baker <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> **On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 2:34 AM, Martijn Dashorst < > >> [email protected]> wrote: > >> > >>> or, if these images and css are for your application, and application > >>> wide (i.e. all pages include them), you could put them in > >>> src/main/webapp/...... > >>> > >>> and just <link src="style.css" ... /> them in your markup. > >>> > >>> Martijn > >>> > >> > >> I'd like to pose a design/theoratical thought here .... > >> > >> I understand that <wicket:link/> does the right thing for resources > (like > >> stylesheets) kept in the classpath. I love this behavior. > >> > >> But, as we know, depending on where my browser URL points, the > following: > >> > >> <link href="css/styles.css" .../> > >> > >> resolves to different locations. For instance, said stylesheet > referenced > >> from: > >> > >> http://hostname/context/products/wires/24 > >> > >> physically resolves to (mavenized) > webapps/*products/wires*/css/styles.css, > >> whereas from > >> > >> http://hostname/context/people/hr/judy > >> > >> resolves to webapps/*people/hr/judy*/css/styles.css > >> > >> (In part, this is due to our effort NOT to hardcode the context into the > >> link's href.) > >> > >> *Traditionally, I solved this one of three ways:* > >> > >> 1. Manually manage every application URL and every mapped file and > make > >> sure that in all cases the relative path is correct. Ugh! For obvious > >> reasons - this technique is not maintainable. Large apps back in the > early > >> days of Struts with hundreds of actions and JSPs, this just wasn't > fun. > >> 2. JSTL came along and I started to leverage the <c:url tag. For the > most > >> part, that was a workable solution - the resulting path was 'absolute' > but > >> it wasn't hardcoded. Essentially, it gives the framework a chance to > work > >> its magic (if it were to change somehow). > >> 3. Today, I use the resource method (<wicket:link/>) which obviates > all > >> anxiety by simply letting the framework just manage it. > >> > >> So to your point Martijn, is using webapp/css and directly including > <link > >> href="css/styles.css" .../> really a good - viable, long-term solution > in > >> Wicket apps? Understandably maybe today, the default URL mapper in > Wicket > >> uses query strings and not deep or hierarchical urls - but the important > >> term for me here is "today". > >> > >> What if, in the future, wicket decides to change the default URL mapping > >> scheme - maybe become more RESTful. The inertia built up around legacy > apps > >> using webapp/css may pose a problem. I don't think this is premature > >> functionality ... I think links and urls are a here a now thing and that > >> building and migrating apps to future versions of frameworks is hard and > >> that a loose practice here may come back to bite a developer ... ? > >> > >> Also, I've not yet mounted urls but I assume if I were to mount URLs - > I'd > >> have to really manage this webapp/css approach - whereas, the resource > >> approach with <wicket:link/> would just keep humming along. > >> > >> Some may argue that it isn't really *better* to provide multiple ways to > do > >> the same thing ... take Tapestry for instance and the technical > relevance as > >> to where markup files can or cannot reside. > >> > >> This post is indeed a bit philosophical/theoretical - I've often thought > >> about this topic and wanted to clarify in my mind that maybe, these are > >> either moot points, ignored concerns, overthinking on my part ... or > just > >> not important somehow. As I mentioned, this little detail has always > been a > >> pain point in my previous work and I've just been happy as a lark to use > the > >> <wicket:link/> which protects me from whatever the future provides. I'm > just > >> surprised it isn't the suggested best practice or that dropping files > into > >> webapp/* is *ill*-advised since it assumes something about how Wicket > works. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >> -Luther > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > Become a Wicket expert, learn from the best: http://wicketinaction.com > > Apache Wicket 1.3.5 is released > > Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > >
