On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 8:28 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> 
> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 1:07 AM, Martin Grigorov <[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Igor Vaynberg <[email protected]> 
>>> wrote:
>>>> indeed. we should check that the page pointed to by the id maps back
>>>> to the mount, and create a new instance based on the mount if it
>>>> doesnt. jira please.
>>>
>>> This is already the case, no need of a ticket for this. If there is no
>>> ?5 then Wicket creates ?0 and shows it.
>>
>> this is not what i was talking about...
>>
>>> The "problem" Pointbreak actually mean is that userA may have opened
>>> ?5 in his session, copy the url and give it to
>>> userB, but userB also already have its own session and by chance he
>>> also had reached ?5 and these two ?5s are
>>> different because they may have different states for both users.
>>
>> not only are ?5 different, but they are entirely different pages.
>>
>> so user A goes to /foo, we redirect to /foo?0, they click around and
>> end up on /foo?2
>> user B goes to /bar, we redirect to /bar?0, they click around and end
>> up on /bar?7
>>
>> now user A emails user B the /foo?2 link. when user B hits that link
>> they end up going to a previous version of their *bar* page instead of
>> some instance of /foo because we do not check the mount vs the page
>> id, and whats worse we keep the mount in the url even though we are
>> displaying a page that is not mounted.
>
> Ouch!
>
>>
>> i guess this is why in 1.4 we dropped the mount from nonbookmarkable urls...
>
> I hope you don't mean that we have to redirect to wicket/page?0 from
> the bookmarkable url that the user requested.

no. we should redirect to wicket/page?x when the user navigates away
from the mounted page.

so i go to /bar which is BarPage and end up on /bar?0. click a link
that does something to BarPage, so end up on /bar?1. click a link that
takes me to FooPage, at this point since the page does not match the
mount i should go to /wicket/page?3

-igor

> It'd be better if we check the type of the stored page against the
> type of the page that is mounted at this "bookmarkable" url and throw
> PageExpiredException if they don't match.
>
>>
>> -igor
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The confusing part here is "bookmarkable". Now imagine that there is
>>> no ?pageId in the url. userA clicks several Ajax links to get to
>>> version5 of that page and then copy/paste the url but userB will see
>>> the initial state of the page, not version5 that userA actually meant.
>>> So it seems only ?0 is actually "bookmarkable" for stateful pages.
>>> Only in this case both users will see the same content (if there is no
>>> special logic for user permissions involved).
>>>
>>> If userA wants to fully share his page with userB then he has to share
>>> his session too, i.e. both ?5 and jessionid= has to be in the pasted
>>> url. I don't recomment this!
>>>
>>> ?5 helps when the user refreshes the page in his current session. In
>>> this case he will see the same content as before the refresh. In 1.4
>>> he'd see the initial state of the page and will loose any state that
>>> is not persisted so far.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> -igor
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Pointbreak
>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>> It's a problem when users bookmark it. Because ...?5 this session is an
>>>>> entirely other page as ...?5 in another session tomorrow.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Mar 19, 2012, at 11:53, Girts Ziemelis wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2012-03-19 02:46, Paolo wrote:
>>>>>> > I support you! I implemented class NoVersionMount thanks to pointbreak
>>>>>> > in my MainApplication. And It will be my template for future app. But
>>>>>> > to do it, I needed to understood the problem, check on google, read a
>>>>>> > lot of pages, without found a solution, so post the question here, and
>>>>>> > after 3 post, got a right reply for me. Why an wicket user have to do
>>>>>> > all this???? Why not, wicket use the NoVersionMount as default Mount?
>>>>>> > Like in wicket 1.4. And implement an VersionMount as an alternative
>>>>>> > for developer?
>>>>>> I actually like this change so far. I can finally tell, that my page is
>>>>>> stetefull just by looking at the link and ask myself question - if I
>>>>>> really care so much about the clean link for this page, may be it should
>>>>>> be stateless in a first place?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And why is ?0 such a big problem? It does not cause problems sending
>>>>>> links.
>>>>>> Is there any real proof of google indexing problems so far?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> 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]
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Martin Grigorov
>>> jWeekend
>>> Training, Consulting, Development
>>> http://jWeekend.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]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Martin Grigorov
> jWeekend
> Training, Consulting, Development
> http://jWeekend.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]

Reply via email to